social psychology Flashcards
what are attitudes
“a person’s general feeling of un/favourableness toward a concept”
“general and enduring about person, object or issue”
where do attitudes come from
affect: feelings and values related to attitude object
cognition: person’s beliefs about properties of attitude object
behaviour: observation of how one behaves towards attitude object
types of attitudes
explicit: deliberate, controlled and conscious appraisal process of object and its evaluation
implicit: automatic, unconscious and intuitive association between attitude obejct and its evaluation
measuring attitudes
explicit: asked how +/- feelings are towards particular thing
implicit: implicit association test
when attitudes bets predict behavioru
- social influences minimised
- level sphericity of attitude and behaviour match
- attitudes strong
what are subjective norms
perception what others think you should or should not perfrom behaviour
perception of social pressure to perform or not perfrom behaviour
what is perceived behavioural control
perception fo degree to which can control performing behaviour
belief how easy or hard to perform behaviour
problems with theory of planned behaviour
intentions not great predictors
can predict rational and deliberate behaviours but not spontaneous ones
not take into account implicit attitudes
tells important factors but how to change them
what is cognitive consistency
-beliefs, attitudes, behaviours and mental representations are inter-dependent and are harmonious
maintaining this -consistency is a human motive
what is cognitive dissonance
state of emotional discomfort that comes from inconsistency between attitudes and behaviour
cognitive dissonance theory
based on idea we are sensitive to inconsistencies
if there is dissonance, we experience this as aversive
aversive experience motivates to reduce or eliminate the inconsistency
causes of dissonance
insufficient justification: forced to behave in way that contradicts our beliefs
effort: when put considerable effort into task and it doesn’t turn out as well as hope
decision making: forced to reject options that also had benefits
insufficient justification
-look for external justification for inconsistency, if can’t get it, motivated to reduce dissonance by generating internal motivation
post decision dissonance
typically reduced by enhancing attractiveness of chosen alternative and de-evaluating rejected alternatives and downplaying negative aspects of own choice
effort justification
tendency for individuals increase liking for something they worked hard for
if put in effort to achieve something and not do as well, dissonance created
factors that influence dissonance
the more important the belief/attitude is, the greater the dissonance
dissonance most powerful and upsetting when threatens self-image
decisions with greater consequences have greater dissonance
methods to reduce dissonance
change attitude or behaviour
decrease perception of conflict: add extra info to decrease inconsistency and decrease importance of conflicting cognitions
how to reduce dissonance by adding new info
- acquire new info that outweighs dissonant beliefs or makes conflicting behaviour more justifiable
- seek info to contradict belief
- add cognitions or behaviours consistent with attitude
- self-affirmation and thinking about own positive qualities
how to reduce dissonance by reducing importance
- rationalise
- devalue conflicting knowledge
- deny responsibility for dissonant behaviour
inter-changeable words for person perception
impression information
social perception
social judgement
social cognition
raw material for social perception
physical appearance behaviour situational factors communications from others communications from person themselves
sources of personality misinterpretations
- overestimate unity of personality
- success and failure
- stereotyped classifications
- limits of insight
- mechanisms of rigidity
- overestimate/underestimate role of personal/situational factors
primacy effects
first trait encountered in a identical lists influences the perception of individual (Asch 1946)
central traits
Asch 1946
two identical lists of traits except for warm/cold
greatly influenced perceptions
-warmth and competence are fundamental and universal dimensions of social judgement, social cognition and stereotyped content
common stereotypes
low comp/high warmth: elderly, children
low comp/low warmth: poor, homeless
high comp/high warmth: middle class
high comp/low warmth: rich, professionals
attribution theory
‘naive psychology’
concerned with how people make causal explanations for own and others’ behaviour
dispositional : individual
situational: the environment
correspondent inference theory
concerned with conditions under which people make dispositional attributions of others behaviour
-choice, social desirability, social roles
correspondence bias
-“tendency draw inferences about person unique and enduring dispositions from behaviours that can be entirely explained by situations in which they occur”
fundamental attribution error
-underestimation of impact of situational factors and overestimation of dispositional factors in controlling behaviour
cognitive load and attribution (gilbert and malone 1995)
attribution process occurs in two stages:
dispositional inference (automatic and instant)
situational correction (effort and attention)
increase in cog load undermines situational correction
thomas theorem
“if men defien situations as real, they are real in their consequences”
self-fulfilling prophecy
a false definition evokes new behaviours which prove/live up to the false definition
pygmalion in classroom
-phenomena where high expectations lead to improved performance
-rosenthal and jacobson 1968:
primary school students labelled as growth spurters in scholastic achievement, children labelled showed significant IQ gains
behavioural confirmation - attractiveness
effect of observer expectations on actor self-fulfilling prophecy effects snyder et al 1977 -F and M phone calls -F attractiveness manipulated with photo -M were deemed more sociable and sexually warm when talking to attractive female
behavioural confirmation - hostility
- male students
- labelling perceiver, target and naive perceiver
- labelling perceiver told target is hostile or non-hostile
- those labelled as hostile displayed more hostility
inter-changeable words for identity
self concept or personality
social construction of personality
- actor (characteristics residing in individual, hereditary and environmental influence)
- observer (how perceived by others)
- self observer (beliefs about own characteristics)
self-perception theory
-individuals come to ‘know’ their own attitudes, emotions and internal states by inferring from observations of own overt behaviour and/or circumstances it occurs in
according to self perception theory, when is effects on s elf-concept strongest?
when behaviour interpreted as freely chosen
when prior self-conception is weakly held or uncertain
-when behaviour is observed by audience
-when meet expectations f observer
embodied social cognition
self perception can be subtle, automatic and implicit rather than conscious
- changing facial expressions : changing of emotions
- making a fist : feeling assertive or powerful
- open posture : feelings of power
self-verification theory (Swann 2005)
work hard to verify existing self-conceptions
cognitive strategies: self-consistent feedback
selective interaction: spend time with people who see us as we see ourselves
identity cues: clothing choice, body alterations
interpersonal prompts: emphasise self-consistent behaviour
identity negotiation
- self verification leads to stable self concept
- might conflict in the moment behaviour with behavioural confirmation and self perception
- over lifespan less conflict as others’ expectation help form self conception, self verification help maintain
sociocultural context
- societal discourse both enables and constrains identity formation
- identity categories/stereotypes/interpersonal experiences/identity compatibility/possible future selves
stereotype threat and performance
white and black people take verbal test
told test was strongly diagnostic or non diagnostic
participants stated their race on demographic questionnaire
threat: black < white
discourse and identity change
interviews with lesbians who had been in heterosexual relationship for more than 10 years
discursive analysis
barriers eg can’t be lesbian as have children
confirmation eg i am a lesbian
denial eg had a brief fling when young but that was years ago
self serving bias (Heider 1958)
people selectively attribute success internally and failures externally
social comparison theory
try to evaluate opinions and abilities accurately
if no objectives, compare to others
prefer downward comparisons especially after ego-threat threat
comparing upward can be threatening, but fine if assimilate or expect to improve in future
positive group distinctiveness
social identity theory
- strive for positive group distinctiveness
- routes to positive group distinctiveness include: individual mobility, social competition, social creativity
mnemic neglect
‘key to happiness is bad memory’
selectively worse memory for negative self relevant feedback
threatened feedback is prcoessed more shallowly
linked to experience avoidance
effects weaker when modifiable or when focused on self-improvement
self enhancement strategies
self-promotion function: greater among high SE people
self protection: esp. when SE threatened
subject to plausibility constraints: ‘strategic’ self-enhancement
four ‘self evaluative motives’
self enhancement
self assessment
self consistency
self improvement
cognitive affective crossfire
posivity of feedback predicts affective reactions: depressive, anxiety, hostility
consistency with self concept predicts cognitive reactions: perceived accuracy of feedback, competence of evaluator, attributions about feedback
benefits of positive illusions
three illusions: unrealistically positive views of self, exaggerated perceptions of personal control, unrealistic optimism
all illusions weaker or absent among depressives and low SE
promote happiness, ability to care, productive work
colvin and block’s critical evaluation of illusions
much research in labs on students
how is ‘reality’ operationalised
group level realities not individual
depressives but not psychotics lack the illusions
depressives not less accurate just more negative
characteristics of self enhancers (colvin, block and funder 1995 )
self enhancement is the discrepancy between favourability of won and other’s ratings
‘friends and accessors hold negative impressions of people who self enhance’
self enhancement associated with ego brittleness not ego resilience
global self-esteem
‘average tone of self-feeling’ it is ‘independent’ and ‘objective reasons for satisfaction and discontent’
implicit self-esteem
automatic, unconscious association
higher implicit MAY associate positive words with self ore quickly and neg words more slowly, may show greater liking for letters of own name in aphabet
predictors of global self-esteem
average of domain-specific self-evaluations are weighted by importance
self-evaluations important domains correlate with global self esteem
-athletic competence
-behavioural conduct
-physical appearance
-scholastic competence
-social acceptance
cultural values as moderators in self-esteem
cultural views moderate: controlling life doing my duty benefitting others achieving status
construction of self-esteem
socially: depend on social value of domains
depend on social comparison standards
individual: self-promotion and self protection strategies
heritability of self-esteem
genetic influence is ‘substantial’
protective benefits of self-esteem
low SE in adolescence predict neg outcome in adulthood
- poorer mental health
- worse job prospects
- more criminal behaviour
sef-esteem as sociometer
belongingness hypothesis: ‘desire to form and maintain … lasting, positive and sig interpersonal relationships’
selfesteem functions as the sociometer: monitor quality of relationships and motivates behaviour to maintain min. level acceptance
evidence of sociometer theory
state SE fluctuates with inclusion and exclusion
trait SE correlated with perceived appreciation or devaluation by others
public events affect SE more than private ones
correlations of low self-esteem
leary 1995
dysphoric emtoions, substance abuse, depression, irresponsible sexual behaviour, eating disorders
what did leary et al use to explain the correlations between low self esteem and depression
effects of real, imagined or anticipated rejection
self esteem across cultures
- evidence for self criticism rather than self enhancement among asian populations
- asian have lower SE than north america
- no evidence they don’t have self esteem or that it is less important
nathaniel branden on politics of self esteem
‘higher the levels of SE, more likely treat others with respect, kindness and generosity”
“cannot think of psychological problem that is not traceable to low SE”
Taylor and Brown 1988 - positive illusions
review of evidence that three positive illusions about self are “characteristic of normal human thought”
- unrealistically positive views of self
- exaggerated perceptions of personal control
- unrealistic
- positive emotions promote happiness, ability to care for others and capacity for creative and productive work
colvin and block 1994
criticism of ‘positive illusions’
- samples in lab and only undergrads
- are they really illusions? how is reality operationalised?
- psychosis don’t lack illusions, so are they associated with better mental health
taylor and brown 1994 clarified their position on ‘positive illusions’
- accuracy not necessary for mental health
- illusions foster happiness, caring, creativity and growth
- it doesn’t mean more illusions are bettre or that they are good and necessary for mental health
self-esteem and aggression views
conventional: people who are biolent and aggressive suffer from low SE
alternative: high self-esteem may result in aggression when ego is threatened
evidence against conventional view of self esteem and aggression
baumeister 1996: violent people have favourable views of themselves and violence explicitly intended to demonstrate superiority
kernis 1989: no relation unless stability of SE taken into account, lowest hostility those with high stable SE, highest hostility those with high unstable SE
high self esteem vs narcissism
distinction between secure forms of high SE and inflated views of self
-narcissism: extreme or ‘ultra high’ levels of SE, unstable SE, strong motive for self aggrandisement, disregard others, increased sensitivity to ego threats
narcissism and aggression baumeister 1998
measures of SE and narcissism
prochoice or pro life essays
SE not predict aggression
aggression seen in participants with higher narcissism scores and ego threats
self-esteem according to Heppner and KErnis 2011
hgih just high or low SE but secure or unstable SE
markers of fragile/insecure high SE: instability, contingency, discrepant explicit and implicit self-esteem
optimum SE is stable
self-affirmation theory
key claims:
- motivated to maintain sense of positive self regard
- threats to integrity promote defensiveness
- self-affirming manipulations promote more systematic processing of info, greater info acceptance changes in attitude, intentions and behaviour
self affirmation and prejudice
Fein and Spencer
values affirmation manipulation
job application and video of interview
minor details suggest ethnicity
self affirmed: 90% ratings on personality for both jewish and italian
not self-affirmed: 70% jewish 92% italian
what does prosocial behaviour encompass according to Hogg and Vaughan 2018
acts that are: positively valued by society have positive social consequences contribute to well-being of another person are voluntary are intended to benefit others
behaviours that prosical behaviour is trying to capture
attempted helping: when someone tries to help someone or something else in some way
helpful behaviour: behaviour someone thinks has benefitted someone or something in some way
why do we do anything?
automatic responses to stimuli that are learned
deliberate goal pursuit where outcome is satisfying and the anticipated costs/benefits are weighed up
what is the bystander - calculus model
before attending an emergency go through 3 steps
physiological arousal
arousal is labelled as an emotion
costs and benefits of helping weighed up
what is bystander effect
lone bystander more likely help than when surrounded by others
diffusion of responsibility
what is self regulation
- controlling thoughts, feelings and behaviour in order to achieve your goals
- successful regulation means successfully achieving your goals
what are the different processes in self regulation
deciding which goals to pursue
managing conflict between goals
resisting temptations
classic study: marshmallow test
kids who couldn’t wait:
as teens had worse academic achievement, social outcomes and more behavioural problems
as adults lower income, lower SE, divorced
key takeaway: ability to delay gratification is key for success in life
trait self control
-scores on self control scale predict success across all their measures of behaviour (De Ridden 2012)
how faulty predictions about future emotions contribute to failure of self-regulation
make errors when performing affective forecasting
can’t accurately predict what makes us happy, may pursue wrong goals
planning fallacy in failure of self-regulation
tendency to hold confident belief that one’s own project will proceed as planned, even if past its run late
-when making predictions tend to focus on future rather than past actions
planning fallacy Buehler 1994
37 psych students asked out their research project 48.6% pessimistic 27% optimistic only 33.9% were accurate
strength model
baumeister and vohnstice 2007
-slef control dependent upon limtied resource which is depleted when exert self control
leaves fewer resources for further self-control
ego depletion effect
dai 2014
controversial
fatigue can reduce self-control
can self regulation be improved
set of skills that can be learned but they are specific to a task or domain
no evidence of general cog ability
pre-commitment improve self regulation
ariely 2002
students performed better when deadlines evenly spaced
students who voluntarily set earlier deadlines still set them near end of term and ended up with worse grades
don’t pre commit optimally
improving self-regulation through self-compassion
breines and chen 2012
chose to spend longer studying for second test, so did better
what are emotions
motivated states with various components: physiological arousal, expressive behaviour and conscious experience
different words for emotional states
emotion: intense, short lived, specific feelings about something
mood: less intense, longer lasting, more general
affect: generic term for the above, good or bad feelings
evolutionary approach to emotions
emotions promote ‘right’ response to recurring situations of adaptive significance in evolutionary past
what influence of emotions do we tend to underestimate?
affect on thoughts and behaviour
hot-cold empathy gap
evidence of emotions influencing memory
mood congruent recall: more likely retrieve memories consistent with current mood
state dependent memory: remember best when mood at encoding matches mood at recall (Bower 1981)
Generally better at recalling emotional memories (Cahill 1996)
Bower’s network theory 1981
emotional arousal spreads through network and primes other nodes it’s associated with making them more accessible and more likely to be retrieved
emotions influence judgments make about self
mildly depressed make more accurate self-ratings as no self-serving bias
however, show bias when rate others
emotions influence judgments make about others
- uni tutors make different decisions on cloudy vs sunny days
- people report being more satisfied with lives on sunny days, effect diminished if asked about weather first
Emotions as information (Schwarz and Clore 1983)
Emotions used as source of info when making judgements
experience our feelings as reactions to whatever we are focusing on
assume they provide relevant info to decision we are making
what happens if dont have emotions
damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortex impairs emotional processing
but doesn’t make people more rational
impairs ability to make decisions and learn from mistakes (Bechara 1994)
social view of why we have emotions
they promote the attainment of social goals that are more indirectly related to survival
why are self-conscious emotions important
they regulate the self in context of social groups are relationships (Tracy and Robins 2004)
pride reinforces and motivates socially valued behaviour
shame, guilt, embarrassment felt in response to transgression of norms
Parkinson 1996 ‘emotions are social’
emotions often caused by social factors, they have consequences for others and serve interpersonal and cultural functions
emotions are essentially communicative
emotions as social information model (EASI)
emotions regulate interactions by triggering affective reactions and inferences in observers
effect of emotions on observers depends upon their info processing and relational factors
mood/emotion contagion
- individuals living with depressed roommate more likely to become depressed themselves (Joiner 1994)
- just hearing someone tlak in depressed tone can cause contagion (Neumann and Strack 2000)
facial feedback hypothesis (Strack 1998)
- states that people’s facial activity influences their affective responses
- found that participants were more amused by cartoons when holding pen between teeth than between lips
how does mood contagion occur
unconscious process - motor mimicry, facial and bodily feedback
conscious process- appraisal and social comparison
evidence of emotion spreading through groups
- our happiness is linked to friends’ friends happiness (Fowler and Cristakis 2008)
- one individual can affect mood fo group; ripple effect (barsade 2002)
- mood of individuals within group can become linked (totterdell 1998)
social sharing of emotion
-people report sharing 9/10 emotional events that happened to them with others (Rime 1991)
these people then share with others; secondary sharing (curci and Bellelli 2004)
emotions spread through active processes
the impact of sharing emotions on relationships
- ‘co-rumination’ linekd to anxiety and depression, but also to closeness and friendship quality (rose 2002)
- self-disclosure increases liking (collins and miller 1994)
- positive emotion expression facilitates bonding between infant/caregiver, promotes romantic relationships and lead to better relationships with co-workers
why is not all emotion expression good
winners who express positive emotions are seen as less likable
in married couples, those who express negative emotional expression during discussions of conflict important predictors in divorce
what is social influence
deliberate attempts to persuade
influence of presence of others
majority (conformity)
minority (innovation)
what are social norms
belief systems about how to behave
guide behaviour without force of laws
reflect group members shared expectations
descriptive and injunctive norms
Asch paradigm
18 trials
differing number of confederates
unanimous majority
75% make at least one error in group compared to almost 0% when alone
when do people conform
group size: increasing group size up 3 increased conformity (asch 1955)
unanimity: another person giving deviate answer decreases conformity
culture: effect replicated across cultures but degree conformity varies
reasons for conforming
-distortion of perception
-distortion of judgement
-distortion of action
reality is fall into more than one
theoretical explanations for conformity
information social influence
normative social influence
referent informational influence
what is informational social influence
accept info as evidence of reality
goal to make accurate and valid judgements
normative social influence
conform wiht positive expectations of another
need for social approval or harmony
compliance without acceptance
what is referent informational influence
adopt norms, beliefs and behaviours of prototypical ingroup member
maximise similarities of ingroup and differences of outgroups
core motivations for response to influence attempts
goal accuracy
goal of affilation
goal of maintaining positive self concept
group mind theories of collective behaviour
- unconscious group mind that people have in common
- guides sentiments and behaviour
- individual mind replaced by racial unconscious
- contagion
individualism theory of collective behaviour
collective is normal fallacy
crowds largely comprised of people criminal by ‘nature’
hence commonality of violence
problem of group mind and individualism theories
both link collective behaviour to mindless violence
can’t explain non-violent crowd
relied on secondary, selective and partial evidence
took crowd violence out of context
interactionism theories of collective behaviour
- whole is different than sum of its parts (Gestalt)
- individual behaviour explicable in terms of group membership
- shared, internalised representation of group in individuals enables collective behaviour
- interpersonal interaction forms representation
minimal group paradigm to explain collective behaviour
boys favoured ingroup over outgroup even when:
- didn’t know ingroup members
- division between in and out group was arbitrary
- no interpersonal interaction among ingroup
- not interpersonal interaction but shared social identity
self categorisation theory of collective behaviour
- cognitive representations form self-categories
- exist at different levels of abstraction
- salience operates through fit x perceiver readiness
- category salience accentuates within group similarities and outgroup differences
- social influence through shared self categorisation
how is collective behaviour possible according to SCT
function of people in crowd self-stereotyping
apply shared social category to themselves
see self as interchangeable with others in group
depersonalisation
explanation of riot behaviour (Reicher)
- thematic analysis
- shared social identity or rioters: locality, desire for freedom, antagonistic relationship with police
- attack targeted at banks and police only
implications of SCT
adherence group norms social influence from ingroup feeling of unity attraction to ingroup self-sacrifice sharing perception with ingroup
what is collective action
‘when group emmber engages in CA anytime when acting as representation of group and action is directed at improving condition of group’ (wright 1990)
‘aim to improve status, power or influence of entire group’
how are grievances/perceived injustice associated with CA
- take CA to oppose injustice against a group
- greater perceived injustice associated with greater CA engagement
- grievances at heart of both violent and non-violent CA
- social, economic, political, environmental grievances
what is the relative deprivation theory
awareness of shared grievances
egoistic vs fraternal deprivation
subjective sense of deprivation
rests on social comparison with outgroup/ingroups past/desired situation fro ingroup
how is efficacy associated with cA
not all people protest their affairs
group efficacy: belief it is possible to address grievances through collective action
efficacy perceptions positively predict collective action
how is social identity associated with cA
individuals take CA on behalf of groups they care about and identify with
direct positive effects of social identification with disadvantaged group of social movement on CA
social identity model of collective action (SIMCA)
perceived injustice + identity + perceived efficacy = CA
social identity has direct and indirect effects on CA
identification linked with stronger feelings of injustice or efficacy lead to greater collective engagement
emotion extension of SIMCA
anger prototypical emotion associated with CA
affective reactions to injustice more powerful predictors than perceptions of injustice
sadness and fear are less powerful emotions
what is the intergroup emotions theory
think of self as group member, appraise how events affect group
experience emotions on behalf of groups
violent collective anger: emotions like contempt other than anger
identity extension of SIMCA
politicised identification: identification with social movement more proximal predictor of CA than identification with disadvantaged group
- specifies opposing group
- creates inner obligation
- inclusive to 3rd party groups
dual pathway model of cA
identity pathway: politicised identification
instrumental pathway: collective motives, social motives, rewards motives
what is the area social cognition
adopting methods an dmodels of cog pysch and applying to social psych
definition of inevitability of categorisation
‘human mind must think with aid of categories … cannot avoid process…cannot handle so mnay events. if think about htem all, we type them’ Allport
what is a stereotype
consensually shared definition held by members of group
unjustifiable generalisation
knowledge structure about group
mental shortcut
effects of stereotype on thought
- where attention directed
- how categorise and interpret
- how attribute/explain
- how remember/recall
- how gather info
- our own behaviour
benefits of stereotype use
heuristics -mental short cuts help classify people quicker -provide organised structure in memory -can be used as logical simplifications -energy saving devices
macrae, milne and bodenhausen 1994 stereotype
target and 10 personality traits prime - artist/skinhead estate agent etc -half traits stereotypical -simultaneous probe task prime -> better recall overall supraliminal prime ->more stereotypic traits
influence of mood on stereotypes
bodenhausen, kramer, susser 194
good vs neutral mood induction
disciplinary case
name indicated as no ethic origin or hispanic
happy people in stereotype condition assign higher guilt rating
you can over come stereotypes if:
know lots of personal info about person
have cog ability and attentional capacity to do it
have the motivation to do it
what is a motivated tactician
“fully engaged thinker…choose wisely in interest of adaptabiity and accuracy…choose defensively in interest of speed or self esteem” fiske and taylor
how do fiske and neuberg encourage attribute-based processing/
through outcome dependency, accuracy and accountability
what does devine 1989 say about stereotypes
difference between knowing what a stereotype is and endorsing it to be true or accurate
automatic activation for all but conscious inhibition for some
what are the conclusions of devines 1989 3 studies
stereotypes automatically activated by stimulus person
people in low prej. can inhibit negative parts of stereotypes
need intention, attention and time
prejudice with compunction
be aware of implicit biases
be concerned about them
learn to replace with non-prej. responses
cost of suppression
rebound effects (wegner 1992) once intentional process to remove thought from consciousness stops, the thought rebounds strongly
is rebound of thoughts inevitable
no: depends on type of group, and personal attitudes
less likely when motivated to reject stereotype and social norms indicate stereotypes aren’t acceptable
changing stereotypes weber and crocker 1983, hewstoen 1994
bookkeeping: modify stereotype
conversion: radical change
subtyping: create subtypes
all in response to disconfirming info
subtyping stereotypes
lots of subtypes eventually disintegrates overall stereotype
perceive outgroup more variable
almost any disconfirming behaviour can explained away
insulation or strengthening of stereotype
limits generalisation
