social psychology - exam 3 Flashcards
Define attribution
Process of explaining a person’s behavior
Types of attributions
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)
Define consensus
The degree to which other people behave in the same was as the person whose behavior is being observed.
Define distinctiveness
The degree to which a person’s behavior is unique or different from their typical behavior in other situations
Define consistency
The degree to which a person’s behavior is the same across multiple occasions
Kelley’s Attribution theory
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.
Fundamental attribution error
Cognitive bias where people have the tendency to overemphasize personal traits (dispositional) in others’ actions and underestimate situational factors
Mere-exposure effect
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.
Lake Wobegon Effect (above average effect)
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.”
Self-serving bias
Tendency to attribute successes to internal factors and failures to external factors
Social trap
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.
Prisoner’s dilemma
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
Compliance
Private conformity: both behavior and opinions change (Sherif Paradigm)
Public conformity: temporary and superficial change; outward compliance, inward maintenance of previous beliefs (Asch Paradigm)
Conformity
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.
Sherif study
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.
Asch’s Line Judgment Experiment
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).
Milgram study
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.
Foot-in-the door phenomena
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
Informational influence
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.
Normative influence
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.
Stanford Prison study
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.
Central vs. peripheral route to persuasion
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.
Cognitive dissonance
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.
Social facilitation
Speed of task improves or declines in the presence of others.
Example: Professional musicians perform better with an audience, while amateurs may struggle.
Social loafing
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.
Groupthink
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.
Group polarization
Definition: Group discussions amplify the prevailing opinions of members.
Example: Students disliking a class intensify their dislike after group discussions.
Deindividuation
Definition: Loss of self-awareness in groups, leading to reduced restraint and impulsive actions.
Occurs: Often when anonymity is present, such as in crowds.
Altruism
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.
Bystander effect
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.
Diffusion of responsibility
Shared responsibility leads to reduced individual accountability, contributing to social loafing.
Robber’s Cave experiment
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.
Attractiveness bias
Attractive people are perceived as more intelligent and competent.
Example: Teachers rate attractive children as smarter.
Just-world hypothesis/phenomenon
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.
Believing that a person struggling with a rare disease must have done something evil to be punished
Attraction: symmetry, composite faces
symmetry and composite faces are associated with higher attractiveness and generally preferred
Baby face effect
Individuals with baby-like features are viewed as more naive and kind.
Social psychology
Examination of how people think, feel, and behave in social contexts
