social psychology - exam 3

Question 1

Define attribution

Answer 1

Process of explaining a person’s behavior

Question 2

Types of attributions

Answer 2

Personal (dispositional): attributing behavior to personal traits; someone is acting in this way because of who they are (ex: “she’s clumsy”)

Situational (external): attributing behavior to external factors; what is going on in someone’s life that is masking them this way (ex: He tripped because the cord was in the way)

Question 3

Define consensus

Answer 3

The degree to which other people behave in the same was as the person whose behavior is being observed.

Question 4

Define distinctiveness

Answer 4

The degree to which a person’s behavior is unique or different from their typical behavior in other situations

Question 5

Define consistency

Answer 5

The degree to which a person’s behavior is the same across multiple occasions

Question 6

Kelley’s Attribution theory

Answer 6

This theory suggests that individuals use three key pieces of information to make casual attributions: consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency

For consistent behaviors, personal attributions occur when consensus and distinctiveness are low.
Situational attributions occur when consensus and distinctiveness are high.

Question 7

Fundamental attribution error

Answer 7

Cognitive bias where people have the tendency to overemphasize personal traits (dispositional) in others’ actions and underestimate situational factors

Question 8

Mere-exposure effect

Answer 8

Cognitive bias where individuals show preference to things they’re more familiar with. Repeated exposure to a stimulus increases liking and familiarity, even without conscious recognition.

Question 9

Lake Wobegon Effect (above average effect)

Answer 9

Cognitive bias where people overestimate their positive traits compared to others

Ex: 70% of high school students rated themselves above average in leadership; 100% said they were above average in “getting along with others.”

Question 10

Self-serving bias

Answer 10

Tendency to attribute successes to internal factors and failures to external factors

Question 11

Social trap

Answer 11

Social trap is a situation where individuals or groups act in ways that seem beneficial to the group or individual but result in negative outcomes for larger society. People’s pursuit of personal gain or self-interest leads to collective harm.

Question 12

Prisoner’s dilemma

Answer 12

Represents a situation where two individuals pursuing their self-interests end up with a suboptimal collective outcome. Due to a lack of trust and cooperation, both parties choose actions that result in greater overall punishment instead of working together

Question 13

Compliance

Answer 13

Private conformity: both behavior and opinions change (Sherif Paradigm)

Public conformity: temporary and superficial change; outward compliance, inward maintenance of previous beliefs (Asch Paradigm)

Question 14

Conformity

Answer 14

A change in an individual’s behavior or beliefs as a result of real or imagined group pressure

Chameleon Effect: People unconsciously mimic the behavior of others, such as face-rubbing or foot-shaking, as demonstrated by participants mimicking the behavior of their partners.

Question 15

Sherif study

Answer 15

Social comparison theory: we want to know if our opinions are correct and how good our abilities are, we are dependent on social reality

Method: Participants estimated the movement of a stationary light in a dark room (an illusion known as the autokinetic effect). Initially alone, later in groups.

Findings: Participants’ estimates converged to a common value in groups, showing informational influence where people look to others for cues in ambiguous situations.

Question 16

Asch’s Line Judgment Experiment

Answer 16

Method: Participants chose the matching line in a group; confederates intentionally gave wrong answers.
Findings: Participants conformed 37% of the time despite obvious correct answers.
Key Factors:
- Group size (3+ increases conformity).
- Judgment ambiguity.
- Presence of dissenters.
- Group member status.
- Cultural/individual differences.
- Conformity Types:
- Private Conformity: Internal belief change (e.g., Sherif).
- Public Conformity: Outward agreement without belief change (e.g., Asch).

Question 17

Milgram study

Answer 17

Method: “Teachers” administered increasing shocks to a “learner” (actor) for wrong answers.
Findings: 65% delivered the maximum shock, showing strong obedience to authority.
Key Factors:
- Prestige of location (e.g., Yale increased obedience).
- Learner proximity (greater distance = higher compliance).
- Physical presence of authority.
Foot-in-the-Door Effect: Gradual shock increases encouraged continued compliance.
Follow-Up Variations:
- Less prestigious location → lower compliance.
- Authority absent or instructions via phone → lower compliance.
- Self-chosen shock levels → rarely exceeded 45 volts.

Question 18

Foot-in-the door phenomena

Answer 18

You start by asking for a small initial request.
Once the person agrees to the small favor, they are more likely to comply with a larger, related request later

Question 19

Informational influence

Answer 19

Definition: Conforming due to a desire to be correct; relies on others as a source of information.
Occurs When:
- Situations are ambiguous.
- Others are perceived as more knowledgeable.
- The decision has high stakes.
Outcome: Private acceptance (internal belief change).
Example: Following the actions of a local crowd during an emergency.

Question 20

Normative influence

Answer 20

Definition: Conforming to gain approval or avoid disapproval from others.
Occurs When:
- The individual wants to fit in.
- Social norms are explicit or implied.
Outcome: Public compliance (no internal belief change).
Example: Agreeing with a group’s opinion in public but disagreeing privately.

Question 21

Stanford Prison study

Answer 21

Method:

College students randomly assigned as guards or prisoners in a mock prison.
Study intended to last 2 weeks but ended after 6 days due to extreme behaviors.
Key Findings:

Role Influence: Participants adopted roles quickly and intensely (guards became abusive, prisoners passive or rebellious).

Deindividuation: Loss of personal identity in a group led to reduced self-restraint.
Situational Power: Situations, not personality traits, can drive extreme behavior.

Conclusion: Authority and role expectations can significantly impact behavior.

Question 22

Central vs. peripheral route to persuasion

Answer 22

Central Route:

Definition: Focuses on logical arguments and evidence.
When It Works: Audience is motivated and able to think critically.
Outcome: Leads to lasting attitude change.
Example: Buying a car after comparing safety ratings and fuel efficiency.

Peripheral Route:

Definition: Relies on superficial cues (e.g., attractiveness, emotions).
When It Works: Audience is unmotivated or lacks ability to process details.
Outcome: Temporary attitude change.
Example: Buying a product because a celebrity endorses it.

Question 23

Cognitive dissonance

Answer 23

Theory (Festinger): People experience discomfort when their behavior conflicts with their beliefs. To reduce tension, they may change their attitudes.
Example: Smokers rationalizing their behavior despite health risks.

Question 24

Social facilitation

Answer 24

Performance improves on simple tasks but may decline on complex tasks in the presence of others.
Example: Professional musicians perform better with an audience, while amateurs may struggle.

Question 25

Social loafing

Answer 25

Individuals in a group exert less effort when contributions are not individually identifiable.

Tug of War Study: Blindfolded participants pulled less forcefully when they believed others were also pulling.

Clapping/Cheering Study: Effort decreased as group size increased.

Mitigating Factors: Identifiable contributions, meaningful tasks, individual rewards, and group cohesion.

Diffusion of Responsibility: Shared responsibility leads to reduced individual accountability, contributing to social loafing.

Question 26

Groupthink

Answer 26

Definition: A decision-making group prioritizes harmony over critical analysis, leading to poor decisions.
Signs: Few alternatives considered, selective information gathering, pressure to conform, withholding criticism, and rationalization.

Question 27

Group polarization

Answer 27

Definition: Group discussions amplify the prevailing opinions of members.
Example: Students disliking a class intensify their dislike after group discussions.

Question 28

Deindividuation

Answer 28

Definition: Loss of self-awareness in groups, leading to reduced restraint and impulsive actions.
Occurs: Often when anonymity is present, such as in crowds.

Question 29

Altruism

Answer 29

Altruism: Helping others without expecting personal benefit.
Motivations:
Personal Distress: Helping to reduce one’s own discomfort.
Empathy: Helping due to sympathy and compassion for others.

Question 30

Bystander effect

Answer 30

Kitty Genovese Case: The infamous case of bystanders not helping a woman in distress, which spurred research into the Bystander Effect.

Darley & Latané’s Bystander Intervention Study:
Method: Participants spoke over intercom with what they believed were multiple people. During the call, a staged “seizure” occurred, and response rates were measured.
Findings: The more “observers” there were, the less likely individuals were to help, illustrating diffusion of responsibility.

Factors Increasing Likelihood of Helping:
Positive mood, guilt, observing others help, similarity to the victim, presence in rural areas, and direct requests for assistance all increase the likelihood of intervention.

Question 31

Diffusion of responsibility

Answer 31

Shared responsibility leads to reduced individual accountability, contributing to social loafing.

Question 32

Robber’s Cave experiment

Answer 32

Stage 1: Boys at a camp were split into two groups (Eagles and Rattlers) and engaged in bonding activities, forming distinct group norms.
Stage 2: Competition led to increased in-group solidarity, negative out-group stereotyping, and hostility.
Stage 3: Cooperation through shared goals (e.g., fixing a water supply) reduced conflict.

Key Findings:

Realistic Conflict Theory: Competition for limited resources creates intergroup conflict.
Ingroup Bias: Groups showed loyalty and favoritism toward their own members.
Conflict Resolution: Shared goals requiring cooperation can reduce hostility.

Question 33

Attractiveness bias

Answer 33

Attractive people are perceived as more intelligent and competent.
Example: Teachers rate attractive children as smarter.

Question 34

Just-world hypothesis/phenomenon

Answer 34

Belief that the world is fair, leading to victim-blaming.
Experiment: Participants observed a “random” participant receiving shocks. Those who strongly believed in a just world rated her poorly and blamed her for her situation.

Question 35

Attraction: symmetry, composite faces

Answer 35

symmetry and composite faces are associated with higher attractiveness and generally preferred

Question 36

Baby face effect

Answer 36

Individuals with baby-like features are viewed as more naive and kind.

Question 37

Social psychology

Answer 37

Examination of how people think, feel, and behave in social contexts