unit 2: social psych Flashcards
attribution theory
we have the tendency to explain someone’s behavior as either due to the situation or that person’s disposition or personality/attitude (who they are)
fundamental attribution error
overestimate a person’s disposition (who they are) and underestimate the situation
attitude
a belief or feeling that predisposes a person to respond in a particular way to objects, other people, and events
foot in-the-door phenomenon
small request –> large request
door in-the-face phenomenon
large request –> small request
zimbardo’s stanford prison experiment
- took place in stanford university basement
- random assignment with roles
- extremely realistic
- guards abused power
- prisoners tried to revolt
- canceled in 6 days because it worked too well
- questionable ethically
- proved the hypothesis: the role you are playing will change your thinking (attitude)
phillip zimbardo - standford prison experiment (role playing affects attitudes)
cognitive dissonance
- tension that exists when our actions and attitudes don’t match
- we often try to adjust our attitude to match our actions
festinger & carlsmith’s cognitive dissonance experiment
paid to praise boring task
all subjects given a boring task, all subjects were asked to tell the next group of volunteers that the experient was fun, half the subjects were paid $1, half were paid $20 to say it was fun
cognitive dissonance: action: “this is fun” attitute, “this is boring”
- all subjects were asked to rank how boring the task was
- the $1 group rated it the most fun: proving cognitive dissonance
conformity
when we follow the behavior of other humans
obedience
when we comply with an authority figure
chameleon effect
a person unconsciously adjusts their behavior to conform with a group
ex. sneezing
asch’s line test experiment
- subjects placed in a room with 5-6 confederates (looked like subjects, but were part)
- judged length of lines
- they gave wrong answer
- saw whether 5th person went along with the group
solomon asch - line length - group conformity
normative conformity
(people conform for 2 main reasons)
to gain the approval of the group or avoid rejection
informative conformity
(people conform for 2 main reasons)
the group may be right, or have valuable information
milgram’s shock experiment
- subjects were paired with a partner, who was a confederate (hooked to “shock machine”)
- everytime they got it wrong the shocks got stronger each time
- experimenter said they must continue
- most poeple went furthur (proving obidence)
stanley milgram - shock experiment - obedience
central route to persuasion
convincing someone to do something with facts
peripheral route to persuasion
convincing someone to do something with anything other than fact
social facilitation
improved performance on tasks in the presence of others
(if you are good at something you get better when others watch you)
social inhibition
if you are bad at something and others watch you, you will get worse
social loafing
an individual in a group shows less effort than if he or she were doing it individual (think high school group projects!)
deindividuation
individuals lose their sense of self-awareness and self-control when they are in a large group
group polarization
members of a group tend to think alike their opinions will strengthen with the more time they spend together
groupthink
people will try to keep harmony in a group and lose sight of realistic alternatives to their thinking
ex. a group where everyone gets along, that even if you disagree, you go along with the group
prejudice
unjustiable (usually negative) attitude toward a group
discrimination
negative BEHAVIOR towards a group
scapegoat theory
(emotional scapegoat)
blaming someone for the faults or wrongs of others, usually because its easier than dealing with the roots cause
ingroup
people who share a common identity
outgroup
not included in an in-group
ingroup bias
tendency to favor your own group
outgroup homogeneity
the tendency to believe your ingroup is more diverse than your outgroup
just-world phenomenon
tendency for people to believe that the world is just (or fair) and that people get that they deserve
frustration-aggression principle
frustration –> anger –> aggression
social trap
conflicting parties, by each pursuing their own self-interests, become caught in mutually destructive behavior
mere exposure effect
the more you see someone, the more you like them
passionate love
an aroused state of intense positive absorptions (usually at the beginning of a relationship)
companionate love
deep, affectionate attachment for those with whom are lives are spent
altruism
unselfish regard for others
equity
people receive the same amount as they give in a relationship
bystander effect
tendency of any given bystander (witness) to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present
diffusion of responsibility
“someone else will do it”
pluristic ignorance
“no one else seems concerned, it might not be an emergency”
social exchange theory
all of our social behavior can be described as trying to maximize benefits while minimizing costs
reciprocity norm
we should return help and not harm those who have helped us
social responsibility norm
help others when they need us even though they may not repay us
superordinate goals
shared goals that often can go above individual differences
collectivist culture
- ex. japan
- stress conformity or ties to others
individualistic culture
- ex. united states
- stress uniqueness and standing out
g.r.i.t.
- this is a strategy designed to decrease international tensions
- work together on mutual interests to relieve tension
graduated & reciprocated in tension - reduction (grit)
