Social Psychology Prpjet

Question 1

Causal attributions

Answer 1

Causal attributions are inferences that people draw about the causes of their own behaviors and the behaviors of others. Attributions can be internal (dispositional) or external (situational), stable or unstable, and specific or global. For example, people with an optimistic explanatory style attribute the negative outcomes of their actions to external, unstable, and specific factors, while those with a pessimistic explanatory style attribute them to internal, stable, and global factors (e.g., Peterson & Seligman, 1984). Researchers have identified several biases that affect causal attributions:

(a) The fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977) is the tendency to overestimate the role of dispositional factors and underestimate the role of situational factors when making attributions about the behavior of another person. There’s evidence that the fundamental attribution error is affected by culture. For example, Miller (1984) asked North Americans and Asian Indians about the causes of negative events they had observed and found that, among children, there were no significant differences in terms of situational and dispositional attributions. However, among adolescents and adults, North Americans made more dispositional attributions and Asian Indians made more situational attributions.
(b) The actor-observer effect (Jones & Nisbett, 1971) addresses the attributions we make about ourselves and other people, and it is the tendency to attribute our own behaviors to situational factors and the behaviors of others to dispositional factors.
(c) The self-serving bias (Ross & Sicoly, 1979) applies to attributions we make about ourselves. It occurs when we attribute our own behaviors to dispositional factors when those behaviors have desirable outcomes but to situational factors when they have undesirable outcomes.
(d) The ultimate attribution error (Pettigrew, 2001) applies to attributions made about members of entire groups. It occurs when the negative behaviors of members of one’s own in-groups are attributed to situational factors while the negative behaviors of members of out-groups are consistently attributed to dispositional factors, and vice versa for positive behaviors. The ultimate attribution error has been used to explain the prejudice of members of a majority group toward members of minority groups.
(e) The group attribution error applies to attributions made about a group and its members. There are two versions. As described by Hamill, Wilson, and Nisbett (1980), the group attribution error occurs when people believe that an individual group member’s beliefs, attitudes, and preferences are reflective of those of the group as a whole. As described by Allison and Messick (1985), it occurs when people believe that the decision or conclusion drawn by a group reflects the decision or conclusion of each individual group member, even in the presence of information suggesting that the group decision was not unanimous.

Causal attributions are also addressed by Kelley’s (1967) covariation model. It proposes that people make attributions about another person’s behavior by considering three types of information: (a) Consensus: Would others do the same thing as the person in the same situation? If the answer is yes, there is high consensus; if no, there is low consensus. (b) Consistency: Does the person usually act this way in this type of situation? If the answer is yes, there is high consistency; if no, there is low consistency. (c) Distinctiveness: Does the person usually act differently in other types of situations? If the answer is yes, there is high distinctiveness; if no, there is low distinctiveness.

According to this model, when consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness are all high, people are likely to make an external attribution about another person’s behavior. In contrast, when consensus is low, consistency is high, and distinctiveness is low, people are likely to make an internal attribution.

Question 2

Errors and Biases

Answer 2

Errors and Biases: Researchers interested in social cognition distinguish between automatic and controlled cognitive processing: Automatic processing is fast and efficient and operates outside conscious awareness, while controlled processing is slower and effortful and operates with conscious awareness. Researchers have also found that automatic cognitive processing can cause errors and biases that adversely affect decisions and judgments. These include the following:

(a) The confirmation bias is the tendency to seek and pay attention to information that confirms our attitudes and beliefs and ignore information that refutes them. The role of the confirmation bias in maintaining one’s self-concept is addressed by self-verification theory (Swann, Pelham, & Krull, 1989). It predicts that, regardless of whether people have positive or negative self-concepts, they seek feedback from and prefer to spend time with others who confirm their self-concepts.
(b) Illusory correlation occurs when we overestimate the relationship between two variables that are not related or are only slightly related. An example is the tendency to overestimate the frequency of behaviors that are consistent with negative stereotypes of members of certain minority groups (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976).
(c) The base rate fallacy is the “tendency to ignore or underuse base rate information (information about most people) and instead to be influenced by the distinctive features of the case being judged” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2013, p. 176). As an example, juries are more likely to be persuaded by anecdotal case histories than by probabilistic base-rate information (Kahneman & Tversky, 1973).
(d) The false consensus effect is the tendency to overestimate the extent to which other people share our opinions, values, and beliefs and has been found to affect judgments in a variety of situations. In one study, students were told they had either passed or failed a bogus social sensitivity test. When asked to estimate how other students would do, those who were told they had failed said most other students would fail the test and those who were told they had passed said most other students would pass (Alicke & Largo, 1995).
(e) The gambler’s fallacy occurs when people “believe that a particular chance event is affected by previous events and that chance events will ‘even out’ in the short run” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2013, p. 178). A person is exhibiting the gambler’s fallacy when, after five coin tosses come up with heads, the person is certain that the next toss will be tails.
(f) Counterfactual thinking is the tendency to imagine what might have happened but didn’t and can involve imagining either better or worse outcomes. It’s most likely to occur when the outcome is personally significant and it’s relatively easy to imagine an alternative outcome (Kahneman & Miller, 1986; Roese & Hur, 1997).
(g) Illusory control is also known as the illusion of control and occurs when people believe they can influence events that are outside their control. It has been used to explain superstitious behaviors that people believe will maximize their probability of success. A gambler’s belief that blowing on the dice before throwing them will help him get desired numbers and a person’s belief that she’s more likely to win the lottery if she chooses certain “lucky” numbers are examples of illusory control.

Question 3

Heuristics

Answer 3

Heuristics: Heuristics are “mental shortcuts that provide quick estimates about the likelihood of uncertain events” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2013, p. 164). Although heuristics can be useful when it’s necessary to make quick judgments, they can lead to inaccurate conclusions. Kahneman and Tversky (1974) distinguish between representativeness, availability, and anchoring and adjustment heuristics:

(a) When using the representativeness heuristic to make judgments about the frequency or likelihood of an event, we ignore base rates and other important information and focus, instead, on the extent to which the event resembles a prototype (typical case). For example, assume that you’re asked to judge whether a woman is more likely to be a librarian or elementary school teacher after being told she’s friendly but a little shy, tends to speak very softly, is a conservative dresser, and keeps her house very neat. Most likely, you’ll say she’s a librarian because of her personal characteristics even though there are fewer librarians than elementary school teachers in the population.
(b) When using the availability heuristic, we base our judgments about the frequency or likelihood of an event on how easy it is to recall relevant examples of the event. For instance, people tend to overestimate the frequency of deaths due to shark attacks and plane crashes because, even though they’re actually uncommon, they’re highly memorable.
(c) When using the anchoring and adjustment heuristic, we estimate the frequency of an event or other value by beginning with a starting point and then making upward or downward adjustments. When negotiating the price of a used bicycle at a garage sale, for example, the seller’s initial price is the starting point and determines the size of the purchaser’s counteroffer.

Question 4

Attitudes and Behaviors

Answer 4

Attitudes and Behaviors: Early research found a weak relationship between attitudes and behavior, but subsequent studies found that the strength of the relationship is affected by several conditions, including the strength, accessibility, and specificity of the attitudes (Sanderson, 2010): (a) Attitudes are better predictors of behaviors when a person’s attitude is strong. Attitudinal strength is greater when the person’s attitude toward an issue was derived from direct experience and the issue is relevant to the person’s self-interests. (b) An attitude is more likely to predict behavior when the attitude toward an issue is easily accessible because the person is well-informed about the issue or has been repeatedly asked about it. (c) The link between attitudes and behaviors is stronger when they’re at the same level of specificity. Many early studies failed to find a strong link because they attempted to use general attitudes to predict specific behaviors.

The theory of planned behavior, the prototype/willingness model, and the health belief model provide frameworks for understanding the relationship between attitudes and behaviors:

1. Theory of Planned Behavior: According to the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005), the intention to perform a behavior is the best predictor of behavior, and a person’s behavior intention is determined by three factors: the person’s attitude toward the behavior, what the person thinks others believe he/she should do (subjective norms), and the person’s confidence in his/her ability to perform the behavior (perceived behavior control).
2. Prototype/Willingness Model: The prototype/willingness model (Gibbons & Gerard, 1995) has been used primarily to predict health-related risk behaviors and is based on the assumption that there are two paths to engaging in a behavior: a reasoned path and a social reaction path. The reasoned path is the result of a person’s behavior intention (as predicted by the theory of planned behavior), while the social reaction path is the result of the person’s willingness to engage in the behavior in particular circumstances. According to this theory, willingness depends on the person’s perceived acceptability of the behavior which, in turn, is determined by the person’s prototype (social image) of people who engage in the behavior. When the prototype is positive, a person is more willing to engage in the behavior in social situations that are conducive to that behavior, and vice versa. For example, adolescents who have a positive image of peers who are marijuana users will be more willing than those with a negative image to try marijuana at a party where some of their peers are smoking marijuana.
3. Health Belief Model: The health belief model (Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1994) identifies beliefs, attitudes, and other factors that predict the likelihood that a person will engage in behavior that will reduce the risk for developing a disorder. There are several versions of this model, and the most recent versions include the following factors: (a) Perceived susceptibility refers to a person’s perceptions about his/her likelihood of developing the disorder. (b) Perceived severity refers to the person’s perceptions about the seriousness of the consequences of developing the disorder. (c) Perceived benefits are the person’s beliefs about the likelihood that taking action will reduce his/her vulnerability to the disorder. (d) Perceived barriers are the person’s beliefs about the material and psychological costs of taking action. (e) Self-efficacy is the person’s confidence that he or she has the ability to take action. (f) Cues to action are factors that motivate the person to act (e.g., illness of a family member, advice from health providers, mass media campaigns). An implication of the health belief model is that a person’s willingness to engage in health-related behavior can be increased by targeting these factors.

Theories of Attitude Change: The elaboration likelihood model, social judgment theory, balance theory, cognitive dissonance theory, and self-perception theory provide alternative explanations for attitude change.

Question 5

Theories of Attitude Change

Answer 5

Theories of Attitude Change: The elaboration likelihood model, social judgment theory, balance theory, cognitive dissonance theory, and self-perception theory provide alternative explanations for attitude change.

1. Elaboration Likelihood Model: According to the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981) a persuasive message can be processed through a central or peripheral route. The central route involves thoughtful and careful evaluation of the message and is more likely to be used when a person perceives the message to be personally relevant, has the cognitive ability to process the information, and/or is in a neutral or bad mood. Attitude change induced via the central route depends on the strength of the argument presented in the message, and it’s likely to be strong, enduring, and predictive of behavior. In contrast, the peripheral route involves an automatic evaluation of the message and is most likely to be used when a person perceives the message to be unimportant, does not have the cognitive ability to process the information, and/or is in a good mood. Attitude change induced via the peripheral route depends on peripheral cues (e.g., the credibility and attractiveness of the person delivering the message), and it’s likely to be weak and temporary and not predictive of behavior.
2. Social Judgment Theory: Social judgment theory (Sherif & Hovland, 1961) is based on the assumption that the effectiveness of a persuasive message depends on a person’s current position on an issue, and it distinguishes between three “latitudes” that represent different degrees of similarity between the person’s position and the position advocated by the message: The latitude of acceptance consists of positions the person finds acceptable because they’re similar to his/her own position. The latitude of rejection consists of positions the person finds unacceptable because they’re extremely different from his/her position. And the latitude of noncommitment consists of positions the person will not automatically accept or reject but will consider because they’re moderately different from his/her position. This theory also assumes that the size of the latitudes is affected by the person’s ego-involvement with the issue addressed by the message: As the person’s level of ego-involvement increases, the latitudes of acceptance and noncommitment become smaller and the latitude of rejection becomes larger.
3. Balance Theory: Heider’s (1958) balance theory is also known as P-O-X theory because it focuses on the relationships among three elements: the person (P), another person (O), and an attitude object or event (X). According to Heider, the relationships among these entities can be balanced (consistent) or unbalanced (inconsistent); and, because unbalanced states cause a sense of discomfort, people are motivated to establish balance. For example, a balanced state exists when Patricia (P) likes Olivia (O) and country music (X), and Olivia (O) also likes country music (X). In this situation, Patricia will not be motivated to change her attitude toward Olivia or country music. However, an unbalanced state exists when Patricia (P) likes Oscar (O) and country music (X), but Oscar (O) hates country music (X). In this situation, Patricia (P) will be motivated to establish a balanced state by changing her attitude toward Oscar (O) or toward country music (X).
4. Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Festinger’s (1954) cognitive dissonance theory proposes that, when people become aware of an inconsistency between two of their cognitions (attitudes, opinions, beliefs) or between a cognition and a behavior, they experience a state of mental discomfort (“cognitive dissonance”) that they’re motivated to relieve. To do so, people typically use one of the following ways to relieve dissonance: subtract a dissonant cognition, add a consonant cognition, replace a dissonant cognition with a consonant cognition, increase the importance of a consonant cognition, or decrease the importance of a dissonant cognition.

In an initial study of cognitive dissonance, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) had research subjects participate in a very boring task and then paid some subjects $1.00 and other subjects $20.00 to convince potential subjects (actually confederates) to participate in the task by telling them the task was interesting and enjoyable. As predicted, when the original subjects were subsequently asked to rate the task, those paid $1.00 rated it as more enjoyable than did those paid $20.00. According to Festinger and Carlsmith, this occurred because subjects paid $1.00 had insufficient justification for lying to potential subjects and, therefore, experienced cognitive dissonance. Consequently, to reduce their dissonance, these subjects replaced a dissonant cognition (the task was boring) with a consonant one (the task was enjoyable). In contrast, subjects paid $20.00 did not experience dissonance because they had justification for lying and, as a result, did not change their negative attitudes toward the task.

5. Self-Perception Theory: Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) proposes that people learn about themselves in the same way they learn about other people – i.e., by observing their behaviors and the circumstances in which those behaviors occur. Evidence for self-perception theory is provided by research on the overjustification effect which predicts that, when people are externally reinforced for engaging in an intrinsically rewarding behavior, their intrinsic motivation decreases. In one study (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973), children who enjoyed coloring with felt-tip markers were either rewarded or not rewarded for using the markers during a free play period. As predicted, in a subsequent play period when rewards were no longer given to the previously rewarded children, these children spent less time coloring with the markers than unrewarded children did, apparently because the external reward reduced their intrinsic motivation.

Question 6

Persuasion

Answer 6

Persuasion: Researchers have identified a number of communicator, message, and recipient factors that affect the likelihood that a message will persuade recipients to change their attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. Some of these factors are addressed by alpha or omega strategies for increasing the effectiveness of a persuasive message (Knowles & Linn, 2004): Alpha strategies attempt to overcome resistance to persuasion by increasing approach forces. These strategies involve providing reasons why change is desirable by, for example, maximizing the strength of the arguments presented in the message and using consensus information (showing that the attitude, belief, or behavior advocated by the message is the most popular one). In contrast, omega strategies attempt to reduce or neutralize resistance by decreasing avoidance forces. These include addressing resistance by providing recipients with counterarguments to their concerns and using comparisons to make the position advocated by the persuasive message seem more desirable. Other factors that affect the impact of a persuasive message include the following:

1. Communicator Factors: Communicators are more persuasive when they’re attractive, likable, and credible. With regard to the credibility, the research has found that it’s affected by the communicator’s expertise and trustworthiness and that the communicator’s intent is a determinant of trustworthiness (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953). For example, communicators are perceived as more trustworthy when they’re arguing against their own best interests and when their message is accidentally overheard. Note that the differential impact of high-credible and low-credible communicators on attitude change does not persist because, over time, people tend to remember the message but forget its source. This is referred to as the sleeper effect (Hovland & Weiss, 1951).
2. Message Factors: Message discrepancy, presentation order and timing, and fear arousal are three message factors that affect the persuasiveness of a message. In general, the relationship between amount of attitude change and message discrepancy has an inverted-U shape, with the greatest amount of change being elicited when there’s a moderate discrepancy between the recipient’s current position and the position advocated by the message. However, when communicator credibility is considered, the relationship maintains an inverted-U shape for low-credible communicators, but there’s a linear relationship for high-credible communicators, with amount of attitude change increasing as the degree of discrepancy increases (Aronson, Turner, & Carlsmith. 1963).

When both sides of an argument are presented, a primacy effect occurs when the two sides are presented back-to-back and a period of time passes before recipients’ attitudes are assessed. In other words, the side presented first has the greatest effect on attitudes. In contrast, a recency effect occurs when a period of time passes between presentation of the two sides and the recipients’ attitudes are assessed soon after the second presentation. In this situation, the side presented second has the greatest impact. Other situations (e.g., when the two sides are presented back-to-back and attitudes are measured immediately after the second presentation) are not associated with consistent primacy or recency effects (Miller & Campbell, 1959).

Research on the effects of fear arousal has produced inconsistent results, with some studies finding moderate fear arousal being most effective for producing changes in attitudes and behaviors and others finding low or high fear arousal most effective. However, a meta-analysis of the research (Tannenbaum et al., 2015) found that the effect of fear arousal depends on certain conditions and that appeals to fear are most effective when they (a) attempt to arouse a relatively high level of fear, (b) include an efficacy message that assures recipients that they’re capable of taking the recommended action and/or that performing the recommended action will have desirable outcomes, and (c) describe the negative consequences and the risk for those consequences if action is not taken.

3. Recipient Factors: Recipient factors that have been linked to susceptibility to persuasion include self-esteem, intelligence, and age. In their meta-analysis of the research, Rhodes and Wood (1992) found an inverted U-shaped relationship between self-esteem and influenceability – i.e., recipients with moderate self-esteem were most susceptible to influence. In contrast, these investigators found a linear relationship between intelligence and influenceability, with higher levels of susceptibility being associated with lower levels of intelligence. Studies investigating the impact of age have not produced consistent results, but there’s some support for a U-shaped relationship for adolescents and adults, with adolescents/young adults and older adults being more easily persuaded than middle-aged adults (e.g., Visser & Krosnick, 1998).

The research has also identified strategies that affect people’s resistance to persuasion. For example, McGuire’s (1973) attitude inoculation hypothesis is based on the medical model of immunization and proposes that an effective way to increase resistance to persuasion is to “immunize” people against attempts to change their attitudes. This involves providing them with weak arguments against their current attitudes along with counterarguments that refute those arguments before they’re exposed to the persuasive message.

Question 7

Behavioral Economics:

Answer 7

Behavioral Economics: Behavioral economics is “an approach to understanding decision making and behavior that integrates behavioral science with economic principles” (Reed, Niileksela, & Kaplan, 2013, p. 35). Topics addressed by researchers interested in behavioral economics include materialism, scarcity, and loss aversion.

1. Materialism: Materialism “comprises a set of values and goals focused on wealth, possessions, image, and status … [which stand] in relative conflict with aims concerning the well-being of others, as well as one’s own personal and spiritual growth” (Kasser, 2016, p. 489). Numerous studies have confirmed that there’s a negative relationship between materialism and various aspects of personal well-being. For example, a meta-analysis of the research by Dittmar, Bond, Hurst, and Kasser (2014) found that prioritization of materialistic values and goals strongly correlated with, in order of strength, compulsive buying behavior, engaging in risky health behaviors, negative self-appraisal, and negative affect. The studies have also found that the strength of the relationship between materialism and personal well-being is greater when materialism is measured with a multidimensional scale than when it’s measured with a scale that focuses only on a desire for money and possessions. An example of the former is the Material Values Scale (Richins & Dawson, 1992) which assesses the centrality of acquiring material goods to a person’s life and the person’s beliefs about the effects of acquisition on happiness and success. [Note that the terms “materialism” and “consumerism” are often used interchangeably but that some authors distinguish between them. Denniss (2018), for example, describes materialism as the love of owning things and consumerism as the love of buying things.]
2. Scarcity: Mallainathan and Safir (2014) argue that the scarcity of something required to fulfill a need causes preoccupation with the unfulfilled need and a reduction in “mental bandwidth” that limits “our ability to pay attention, make good decisions, stick with our plans, and resist temptation” (p. 60). According to these investigators, mental bandwidth is made up of two related components: Cognitive capacity consists of mechanisms required to solve problems, engage in logical reasoning, and retain information and is assessed with measures of fluid reasoning. Executive control consists of mechanisms that are necessary for planning, shifting attention, and initiating and inhibiting certain actions. Mallainathan and Safir also propose that periods of scarcity can produce a “scarcity trap,” which is characterized not only by preoccupation with an unfilled need but also with self-defeating behaviors that perpetuate scarcity. For example, a person with limited financial resources may postpone getting a broken car taillight fixed but then gets a ticket for the broken taillight, which results in an additional expense.
3. Loss Aversion: Kahneman and Tversky’s concept of loss aversion is based on the premise that “losses loom larger than gains” (1979, p. 279). In other words, the displeasure that people experience when they lose something is greater than the pleasure they experience when they gain the same thing. According to these investigators, the aggravation caused by losing a specific amount of money is about twice as powerful as the satisfaction caused by gaining the same amount of money. For example, they found that people are likely to reject a bet involving the flip of a coin when they’ll lose $100 if the coin flip produces tails but gain $100 if the coin flip produces heads. In contrast, people are more likely to accept the bet when they’ll lose $100 if the coin flip produces tails but gain $200 if the coin flip produces heads. Loss aversion is a component of Kahneman and Tversy’s prospect theory, which addresses how risky decisions are made.

Question 8

social influence

Answer 8

Researchers interested in social influence have identified several factors that affect willingness to obey authority, comply with requests, and conform to the judgments of others. For example, Brehm and Brehm (1981) found that people may respond to social influence with psychological reactance. It occurs when people feel that pressure to behave in a particular way threatens their personal freedom and they attempt to regain their freedom by, for example, doing the opposite of what has been requested or acting aggressively toward the person who made the request.

1. Obedience to Authority: The best known research on obedience to authority is Milgram’s (1974) research evaluating the willingness of subjects to obey an authority even when doing so seemed to harm another person. Subjects in his studies were told by the experimenter they would be “teachers” who would be responsible for getting a “learner” (actually a confederate) to learn a list of words. The experimenter ordered the teacher to give the learner an electric shock each time the learner made a mistake, with the intensity of the shock increasing with each mistake. The original study was conducted at Yale University and the experimenter sat near the teacher while the learner was in an adjacent room where he could be heard but not seen. Before conducting his initial studies, Milgram asked a group of psychiatrists to predict how many subjects would be willing to deliver the highest levels of shock. They predicted that only a “pathological fringe” of 1 in 1,000 would do so, but the majority of subjects (65%) did, despite the fact that the learner screamed in pain at high levels of shock and eventually stopped responding. In subsequent studies, Milgram varied the conditions by, for example, conducting the study in a run-down office building, having the teacher and learner in the same room, or having the experimenter deliver his orders by phone. In these situations, teachers were less willing to obey the experimenter’s orders to deliver high levels of shock.

Several explanations for Milgram’s results have been offered. Milgram concluded that subjects obeyed the experimenter because the situation put them in an “agentic state,” which he defined as “the condition a person is in when he sees himself as an agent for carrying out another person’s wishes” (1974, p. 111). Other explanations are that the situation was novel and subjects were uncertain about how to behave, the fast pace of the study didn’t give subjects time to reflect on what they were doing, and the increase in shock intensity was gradual and reduced the subjects’ ability to recognize when the experimenter’s orders became unreasonable (Burger, 2011).

2. Conformity to Group Norms: Sherif (1935) was one of the first investigators to study conformity to group norms. He used the autokinetic phenomenon (an optical illusion in which a stationary point of light seems to move in a dark room) and found that, when each subject was asked to estimate the light’s movement alone, the estimates varied considerably. However, when a subject was asked to estimate the movement after hearing other subjects (confederates) give their estimates, the subjects conformed to the group norm. In later research, Asch (1951) found that subjects also conformed to the norm even when the stimulus was unambiguous and it was obvious that the estimates made by group members were wrong.

Informational influence and normative influence have been used to explain conformity in ambiguous and unambiguous situations. Informational influence occurs when people conform to the judgments of others because they think others know more than they do. It helps explain conformity in ambiguous situations and is likely to lead to private (genuine) acceptance of the judgments of others. Normative influence occurs when people conform to the judgments of others to avoid their ridicule or rejection. It helps explain conformity in unambiguous situations and is likely to lead to public acceptance (compliance) without a real change in judgment (Baumeister & Bushman, 2017; Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2016).

3. Compliance with Requests: Several tactics have been found to increase a person’s willingness to comply with a direct request. One of these is the foot-in-the-door technique which is a two-step process in which the influencer first makes a small request that most people would agree to and, when the person agrees, the influencer makes a larger request. One explanation for the effectiveness of the foot-in-the-door technique is that people usually want to act in consistent ways, and turning down the second request would be inconsistent. Another tactic is the door-in-the-face technique, which is also a two-step process. When using this technique, the influencer first makes a large request that most people would reject. Then, when the person turns down the request, the influencer makes a smaller request. One explanation for the effectiveness of this technique is perceptual contrast: After hearing the first request, the second request sounds more reasonable. Another explanation is the norm of mutual reciprocity: After the influencer concedes the initial request and makes a more reasonable one, the person feels that he/she must reciprocate the influencer’s concession by agreeing to the second request (Cialdini, 2009).

Question 9

Group Effects

Answer 9

Researchers interested in group influences on behavior have investigated group effects on individual behavior, minority influence, types of group tasks, and stages of group development.

1. Group Effects on Individual Behavior: Social facilitation, social inhibition, social loafing, and deindividuation are four effects that the presence of other people can have on an individual’s behavior.
   (a) Social facilitation and social inhibition occur when the mere presence of other people affects a person’s task performance. Social facilitation is an improvement in performance and affects easy and well-learned tasks, while social inhibition is a decrease in performance and affects difficult and unfamiliar tasks. According to Zajonc’s (1980) drive theory, social facilitation and inhibition occur because the presence of others increases physiological arousal. Increased arousal then strengthens the dominant response, which is usually the correct response for an easy task and an incorrect response for a difficult task.
   (b) Social loafing is also known as the free rider effect and occurs when members of a group contribute less to the group’s output than they would have done if working alone. For example, in one study, subjects were asked to make as much noise as possible by yelling and clapping, and the results indicated that subjects were louder when making noise alone than when making noise in a group (Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). Explanations for social loafing include diffusion of responsibility and decreased evaluation apprehension: Diffusion of responsibility occurs when people who are working with others on a collective task feel less motivated to exert effort and less responsible for task outcomes. A decrease in evaluation apprehension occurs because, when people are working on a collective task, they’re less concerned that their contribution to the task will be identified and judged by others. Social loafing is less likely to occur when a group is small and cohesive and when group members believe that the task is personally meaningful, they’ll be punished for poor performance, their individual contributions are necessary for a successful outcome, and their individual contributions can be identified and evaluated (Karau & Williams, 1993). There’s also evidence that people from individualist-Western cultures are more likely than those from collectivist-Eastern cultures to engage in social loafing (Simms & Nichols, 2014).
   (c) Deindividuation refers to “the loss of a person’s sense of individuality and the reduction of normal constraints against deviant behavior” (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2016, p. 321). It occurs when people can act anonymously because they’re in a large crowd or their identities are disguised. For example, Mann (1981) found that, when crowds gathered when someone was threatening to jump off a bridge or building, the crowd was more likely to taunt and urge the person to jump when it was night and the crowd was large than when it was day and the crowd was small.
2. Minority Influence: Researchers interested in minority influence have investigated factors that increase the likelihood that an individual group member with a minority opinion will persuade the majority of group members who share an opposing opinion. According to Moscovici (1980), individuals with a minority opinion influence others in a different way than individuals with the majority opinion. While the majority has informational or normative influence, a minority must rely on behavioral style and is most likely to persuade the majority when the minority consistently expresses his or her opinion without seeming to be too rigid or dogmatic. Moscovici also proposed that opinion change due to minority influence is more likely to lead to private acceptance of the opinion (conversion), while opinion change due to majority influence is more likely to lead to public acceptance (compliance).
3. Task Performance: Steiner (1972) proposed that the outcomes associated with group performance are affected by the type of task, and he distinguished between five task types:
   (a) When working on an additive task, it’s not necessary for group members to work together, and the final output is the sum of the contributions of each group member. For this type of task, group performance is better than the best group member’s performance.
   (b) Group members also work independently on a compensatory task, and the group’s output is the average of each member’s estimate, judgment, or other input. On this type of task, group performance is usually better than the performance of any individual member.
   (c) A disjunctive task requires group members to choose the best solution, decision, or judgment from those provided by each group member, which is ordinarily the one provided by the most competent member. A group’s performance on a disjunctive task is equal to or less than the performance of the best group member.
   (d) When working on a conjunctive task, all group members must contribute to the task, and the performance of the entire group (e.g., the group’s ability to meet a deadline or a team’s time to finish a relay race) is limited by the contribution of the least capable member.
   (e) On a discretionary task, group members decide how to combine the contribution of each member, and the group’s performance depends on how the contributions are combined.
4. Group Development: Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) model of group development distinguishes between five stages: During the initial forming stage, group members are uncertain about their roles and responsibilities, rely on the leader to guide them, and act politely toward each other to avoid conflict. Once members feel they’re part of the group, they transition to the storming stage. This stage is characterized by power struggles, conflicts over procedures, and a lack of trust. Next is the norming stage, which is characterized by the growth of group cohesion and commitment, attempts to resolve conflicts and other issues that arose during the storming stage, and the establishment of rules, procedures, and group norms. This stage is followed by the performing stage, during which the emphasis is on working efficiently and cooperatively to achieve group goals. Finally, during the adjourning stage, the focus is on completing tasks, recognizing individual and group accomplishments, and either disbanding the group or continuing the group with new goals.

Question 10

social relations

Answer 10

Psychologists interested in social relations have identified factors that impact affiliation, interpersonal attraction, and intimate relationships.

1. Affiliation: The need for affiliation refers to “the desire to establish and maintain many rewarding interpersonal relationships” (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2016, p. 354) and is usually viewed as having an innate component. For example, for evolutionary psychologists, the need for affiliation is the result of natural selection – i.e., people with a strong desire for affiliation were most likely to survive and reproduce. A number of studies have been conducted to identify factors that affect affiliation. Among the most frequently cited are the studies conducted by Schachter (1959) which found that, when highly anxious subjects were given a choice to wait alone or with other participants, they chose to wait with other participants. But, when given the choice to wait alone or with non-participants, they chose to wait alone. Based on these results, Schachter concluded that “misery doesn’t love any kind of company, it loves only miserable company” (p. 24). Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) has been used to explain the results of Schachter’s research. It predicts that, in uncertain situations, people often compare themselves to others to obtain information about their own abilities, feelings, and other attributes.
2. Interpersonal Attraction: Factors that affect interpersonal attraction include mere exposure, similarity, fallibility, and reciprocity.
   (a) The mere exposure effect is “the tendency for people to come to like things simply because they see or encounter them repeatedly” (Baumeister & Bushman, 2013, p. 241). There’s some evidence that this applies when we initially have a mildly negative, neutral, or positive response to a person but not when our initial response is extremely negative (e.g., Harrison, 1977).
   (b) People tend to be attracted to people they perceive to be similar to themselves in terms of important characteristics. Similarity of attitudes is addressed by Byrne’s (1971) law of attraction, which states that there’s a positive relationship between attitude similarity and attraction and that this relationship is due to the fact that interacting with people who have similar attitudes is reinforcing because it validates our views and produces good feelings.
   (c) Aronson, Willerman, and Floyd’s (1966) research on the pratfall effect has shown that the attractiveness of a person who is perceived to be competent increases when that person commits a blunder, while the attractiveness of a person who is perceived to be mediocre decreases when he or she commits a blunder. According to these investigators, the positive effect of a blunder for competent people occurs because it humanizes them.
   (d) The principle of reciprocity predicts that we like people who like us, and vice versa. However, research on the gain-loss effect (Aronson & Linder, 1965) modified this generalization by finding that (a) we’re more attracted to people who initially dislike us but then change their minds as they get to know us than we are to people who express constant liking for us and (b) we’re less attracted to people who initially like us and then change their minds than we are to people who express constant dislike for us. In addition, Kenny (1994) distinguishes between two types of reciprocity: Generalized reciprocity refers to the degree to which “likers are more likeable” in general, while dyadic reciprocity refers to the degree to which specific pairs of individuals like each other. Studies comparing the two types have found that the correlation for dyadic reciprocity tends to be stronger than the correlation for generalized reciprocity.
3. Intimate Relationships – Emotion Elicitation: According to Berscheid’s (1991) emotion-in-relationships model, strong emotions are elicited in close relationships when a partner interrupts the couple’s usual behavioral routines (sequences) because he or she engages in an unexpected behavior. When the interruption has a desirable outcome, it elicits a positive emotional reaction; when it has an undesirable outcome, it elicits a negative emotional reaction. This model also predicts that the elicitation of strong positive or negative emotions occurs less often in the later stages of a close relationship because a partner’s behaviors are less likely to be unexpected.
4. Intimate Relationships – Sexual Jealousy: Buss, Larsen, Westen, and Semmelroth (1992) found that sexual and emotional infidelity elicit jealousy from both men and women, but that men respond more strongly to sexual infidelity while women respond more strongly to emotional infidelity. These investigators provide an evolutionary explanation for this difference and propose that sexual infidelity became more distressing to men because it threatened their certainty about paternity, while emotional infidelity became more distressing to women because it threatened the support and resources they needed to raise their children. Buss et al.’s research has been criticized on methodological grounds, and several investigators have offered alternative explanations for their results. For example, research by DeSteno and Salovey (1996) supports the double-shot hypothesis, which predicts that men and women have different expectations about the co-occurrence of sexual and emotional infidelity: Men believe that, for women, being emotionally involved with someone does not necessarily require sexual involvement; but, when a women is sexually involved, she’s also emotionally involved. In contrast, women believe that, for men, being sexually involved with someone does not necessarily require emotional involvement; but, when a man is emotionally involved, he’s also sexually involved.

Question 11

Prosocial Behavior

Answer 11

Prosocial Behavior: Prosocial behaviors are intended to help others and include helping and cooperation.

1. Helping – Bystander Apathy vs. Intervention: In 1964, Kitty Genovese was sexually assaulted and stabbed to death outside her New York City apartment and, despite her screams and cries for help during the attack, none of the 38 people who witnessed the crime called the police. Latane and Darley (1970) subsequently conducted a series of studies to determine what factors affect a bystander’s willingness to intervene in emergency situations. They found that the process of deciding what to do in an emergency involves five steps and that, during each step, there are obstacles to providing help:

Step 1 – Noticing the Event: A bystander has to notice that something unusual is happening which may not occur because the bystander is preoccupied with his or her own thoughts or because of stimulus overload. Stimulus overload can occur in big cities and other noisy environments and causes a person to restrict his or her attention to stimuli that seem personally relevant (Milgram, 1970).

Step 2 – Interpreting the Event: A bystander must interpret the situation as an emergency. A bystander may fail to do so because of the ambiguity of the situation or because of pluralistic ignorance, which is a misperception of how others are thinking or feeling: A bystander is exhibiting pluralistic ignorance when she doesn’t take action because she concludes that the inactivity of other bystanders is due to the fact that they know the situation does not constitute an emergency.

Step 3 – Assuming Responsibility: Even when a bystander recognizes there’s an emergency, he or she may decide not to provide assistance when other bystanders are present because of diffusion of responsibility. Diffusion of responsibility refers to a reduced sense of personal responsibility due to the belief that others are willing and able to provide assistance, and it increases as the number of bystanders increases. (With regard to number of bystanders, the studies have found that a victim is most likely to get help when there is only one bystander.)

Step 4 – Determining How to Help: When a bystander recognizes that a victim needs assistance, he or she has to determine how to do so. If the bystander is unable to determine how to help the victim or doesn’t feel competent to do so, the bystander may decide not to provide assistance.

Step 5 – Deciding Whether or Not to Help: Even when a bystander feels competent to provide help, he or she may decide not to do so because of evaluation apprehension, which is also known as audience inhibition and refers to concerns about being judged negatively by others.

2. Helping – Altruism vs. Egoism: Altruism and egoism have been identified as alternative sources of motivation for helping others. According to the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991), empathic concern provides the altruistic motive for helping – i.e., people help another person because they’re concerned about the person’s well-being. In contrast, the negative state relief model (Cialdini, Darby & Vincent, 1973) focuses on the role of egoism and proposes that people help others to reduce their own distress. According to this model, people may feel empathy for a person-in-need, but their empathy produces sadness or guilt, which they attempt to alleviate by providing help. Of these two explanations, the empathy-altruism hypothesis has received the most empirical support. There’s also evidence that providing assistance for altruistic reasons rather than egoistic reasons is more likely to lead to sustained helping (Piferi, Jobe, & Jones, 2006).
3. Cooperation – Superordinate Goals: Sherif’s (1966) Robbers Cave study demonstrated the effectiveness of using cooperation to overcome intergroup conflict. In that study, 11-year-old white, middle-class boys attending summer camp were divided into two groups. Group activities were first structured to maximize cohesiveness within groups and then to maximize competitiveness between groups. As a result, group members became very hostile and antagonistic toward members of the other group. The experimenters used several strategies to reduce intergroup conflict, and they found that the most effective strategy was the introduction of superordinate goals that could be accomplished only when members of the groups worked together cooperatively.

Aronson and colleagues (1978) subsequently developed the jigsaw classroom to evaluate the effects of superordinate goals on prejudice and discrimination in ethnically diverse elementary school classrooms. Students in these classrooms were divided into small multiethnic groups that were assigned a project that required each group member to learn about a different aspect of the project and then explain that aspect to other members of the group. In other words, members of each group had to work together to successfully complete the group project. Comparisons of outcomes for students in jigsaw and traditional classrooms found that the jigsaw classroom had a number of beneficial effects: It not only reduced prejudice and discrimination toward students belonging to ethnic minority groups but also had positive effects on the self-esteem and empathy of all students, and it improved the academic performance of ethnic minority students without hindering the performance of ethnic majority students.

Question 12

Prejudice/Discrimination

Answer 12

Prejudice/Discrimination - Explanations: Explanations for prejudice and discrimination include realistic conflict theory, social identity theory, scapegoat theory, and authoritarian personality theory.

1. Realistic Conflict Theory: According to realistic conflict theory (Pettigrew, 1978), prejudice and discrimination are the result of direct competition between different groups for scarce and valued resources. Evidence for this theory is provided by a number of studies including Sherif’s (1966) Robbers Cave study in which conflict between groups was generated by having two groups of boys who had strong attachments to members of their own group compete for desired prizes. The conflict caused by competition increased in intensity over time: It initially involved only name calling but eventually included stealing from members of the other group and other hostile physical acts.
2. Social Identity Theory: Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) social identity theory is based on the assumptions that people have a natural tendency to categorize people into groups, to identify with one or more groups, and to favor in-groups. Feeling positively toward an in-group increases a group member’s self-esteem, but it can also lead to prejudice and discrimination against members of out-groups. Research by Tajfel and colleagues (1971) found that in-group favoritism developed even in “minimal group” conditions – i.e., when group membership was temporary and based on relatively unimportant similarities.
3. Scapegoat Theory: According to scapegoat theory, “prejudice occurs because members of dominant groups use discrimination against weak target groups to vent their frustration and disappointment” (Breckler, Olson, & Wiggins, 2006, p. 359). Scapegoat theory has been used to explain why frustrating socioeconomic conditions (e.g., high rates of unemployment and inflation) can cause members of the majority group to discriminate against members of minority groups.
4. Authoritarian Personality Theory: Adorno and his colleagues (1950) attributed extreme forms of prejudice and discrimination to an authoritarian personality, which they described as being the result of a harsh, restrictive upbringing and involving nine personality traits: conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and toughness, destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and puritanical sexual attitudes. These investigators developed the F (Fascism) Scale to assess authoritarianism and found that scores on the scale had high correlations with scores on measures of ethnocentrism and prejudice.
5. Dehumanization: Dehumanization is an “evaluative stance (merely cognitive or also behavioral) toward other humans that involves drawing a line between individuals or groups (as in-group/out-group) according to an assumed concept of what it means to be human” (Kronfeldner, 2016, p. 626). Dehumanization is used to explain prejudice and discrimination and can be blatant or subtle. Most early theories focused on blatant dehumanization which denies the humanness of outgroup members and can elicit extreme aggression and violence toward them. In contrast, more recent theories focus on subtle dehumanization which views outgroup members as less than human rather than non-human. An example of the latter is infrahumanization theory: As described by Leyens and his colleagues (2001, 2007), infrahumanization “is a process by which people consider their ingroup as fully human and outgroups as less human and more animal-like” and occurs even in the absence of intergroup antagonism or differences in status (2007, p. 140). These investigators distinguish between primary and secondary emotions, with primary emotions (e.g., anger, surprise, fear) being non-uniquely human and secondary emotions (e.g., pride, hope, shame, resentment, disappointment) being uniquely human. They also propose that people tend to humanize members of their ingroups by attributing more positive and negative secondary emotions to them which, in turn, elicits empathy and prosocial behaviors toward those individuals. In contrast, people tend to attribute fewer positive and negative secondary emotions to members of outgroups which elicits less empathy toward and acceptance of them

Question 13

Covert racism, symbolic, and prejudice

Answer 13

Prejudice/Discrimination – Interventions: Many interventions for reducing prejudice and discrimination are based on Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis. It proposes that contact between members of majority and minority groups is most effective for reducing prejudice and discrimination when (a) members of the groups have equal status; (b) members must work together to achieve common (superordinate) goals; (c) there is no competition between members; and (d) the contact is sanctioned by law, custom, or institutional authorities.

Covert Racism: Ridley (1995) distinguishes between overt and covert racism and intentional and unintentional racism: Overt racism is also known as old-fashioned racism and is characterized by openly hostile and aggressive attitudes toward and blatant acts of discrimination against members of racial minority groups. Covert racism is also known as modern racism and subtle racism and is indirect, ambiguous, and often difficult to recognize; however, like overt racism, it has negative consequences for members of racial minority groups. According to Ridley, overt racism is always intentional, but covert racism can be intentional or unintentional: People exhibit intentional covert racism when they’re aware of their racist attitudes and behaviors and try to conceal their true intent by giving socially acceptable explanations for them. People exhibit unintentional covert racism when they do not deliberately engage in harmful acts and are unaware of the negative consequences of their prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviors. Although overt forms of racism have diminished in the past few decades, covert forms persist. Theories of covert racism include the following:

(a) Symbolic racism (Sears, 1988) is characterized by a belief in egalitarianism coupled with the beliefs that prejudice and discrimination no longer exist, that members of certain minority groups violate traditional White American values such as the Protestant work ethic, individualism, and self-determination, and that the social and economic hardships of these groups are due to a lack of effort and other internal factors. A person exhibiting symbolic racism justifies his/her opposition to affirmative action and other policies and programs designed to promote equality on the grounds that they’re unfair.
(b) Like symbolic racism, aversive racism (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004) is characterized by a belief in egalitarianism. However, it’s accompanied by a non-prejudiced self-image and negative, often unconscious feelings about minority group members that were acquired early in life. People exhibiting this type of racism avoid interacting with minority group members when possible and act in discriminatory ways only when doing so can be justified on a basis other than race.
(c) Ambivalent racism (Katz & Haas, 1988) is characterized by a combination of positive and negative attitudes toward minority group members. These conflicting attitudes lead to emotional tension, which a person attempts to reduce by amplifying his/her positive or negative attitudes: In other words, ambivalent individuals respond in more extreme ways to situations involving a minority group member than they do to similar situations involving a majority group member, and their response can be either positive or negative depending on the nature of the situation. For example, when rating minority group members and majority group members who have engaged in undesirable behaviors, ambivalent individuals will give more negative ratings to minority group members than to majority group members.

Sexism: Sexism “refers to negative attitudes toward individuals based solely on their sex, combined with institutional and cultural practices that support the unequal status of different sex categories” (Bosson, Vandello, & Buckner, 2019, p. 195). Men can be the targets of sexism, but women are the most common targets because of their nondominant position in society. Consequently, most of the literature focuses on the impact of sexism on women. According to ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001), sexism includes two distinct but co-existing and complementary components: Hostile sexism involves “antipathy toward women who are viewed as usurping men’s power,” while benevolent sexism involves “a subjectively favorable, chivalrous ideology that offers protection and affection to women who embrace conventional roles” (2001, p. 109). Hostile and benevolent sexism both reflect the idea that women are inferior to men and thereby justify and maintain gender inequality. Research by Glick and Fiske confirmed that men exhibiting ambivalent sexism often reconcile their competing views of women by distinguishing between two types of women: They direct hostile sexism toward feminists, career women, and other women whom they view as violating traditional gender roles and direct benevolent sexism toward women whom they believe are adhering to traditional gender roles.

Question 14

Stereotypes

Answer 14

Stereotypes: Stereotypes are “rigid and inaccurate preconceived notions that … [one has] about all people who are members of a particular group, whether it be defined along racial, religious, sexual, or other lines” (Sue, 2003, p. 25). Because stereotypes can lead to rigid expectations about members of the stereotyped group, they can result in prejudice and discrimination.

1. Self-stereotyping: Self-stereotyping refers to a person’s unconscious internalization of positive and negative stereotypes that are applied to his/her own group by other groups. The research has found that self-stereotyping can have negative or positive effects, even when the stereotypes are negative. For instance, there’s evidence that endorsing negative stereotypes of one’s own group can help protect a person’s self-esteem by serving as an explanation for his or her behavior or outcomes. Several studies have found that women are more likely to adopt the stereotype that “women are bad at math” when they anticipate or experience failure on a math exam (e.g., Burkley, Andrade, Stermer, & Bell, 2013).
2. Stereotype Threat: Stereotype threat “occurs when situational factors activate group stereotypes in members of low status groups, inducing assimilation to the stereotypes or self-stereotyping” (Hummert, 2011, p. 256). Studies have confirmed that stereotype threat impairs the performance of members of stigmatized groups when they’re performing tasks that are pertinent to a negative stereotype about their groups. For example, Hess and his colleagues (2003) found that the performance of older adults (but not younger adults) on a memory task decreased from baseline after they read a news article that confirmed the stereotype of age-related memory decline but did not decrease after reading a news article that refuted the stereotype. One explanation for the impact of stereotype threat on task performance is that it increases physiological arousal and stress and negative self-statements, thereby reducing the cognitive resources needed to accomplish the task.