w11 social group Flashcards

1
Q

social cognition is

A

thinking about self and others

this is biased and socially constructed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

3 demonstrations of power of the situation

Which 2 are ethically contentious?

A
  1. Asch’s 1956 conformity study
  2. Milgram’s 1963 obedience study
  3. Zimbardo’s prison experiment

Obedience and prison are ethically contentious

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q
  1. Asch’s conformity study
A

conformity - influenced by those around us
confederates + participant
asked which of 3 lines matches the original line length
all confederates say same

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

conformity study results

A

participants conformed to confederates choice 37% of time
75% conformed on at least 1/12 trials

groups of 3 or more conformed more

conformity effect is reduced when:
private responses
others dissented

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Deutsch + Gerard

Types of social influence

A
  1. informational - conform to others because you think they know something you dont
  2. normative - conform with others to fit in
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

we change our behaviour/belief in response to…

A

real or imagined influence of others

influence can sometimes be intentional

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q
  1. Milgram’s obedience study
A

participants assigned role of teacher
instructed by experimenter to administer ‘shocks’ to learners when errors
learner was an actor
no actual shocks given
told to ‘continue with experiment’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Milgram’s study results

A

2/3 volunteeers were going to administer what was believed a very dangerous shock

successive prompts from experimenter (authority) - ‘experiment requiries that you continue’ ‘it is essential’

65% of participants continued past ‘danger’ shock on machine

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

milgram - obedience adjusted depending on how proximal to the experiment

A

someone else gave shock 92.5%
milgram 65%
office building 48%
teacher + learner in same room 40%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

milgram critiques

A
  • were they just following instructions?
  • not obedience?
  • did they identify with the experiment?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q
  1. Zimbardo’s prison experiment
A

males for 2-week prison life study
randomly assigned as ‘guards’ or ‘prisoners’
- prisoners were arrested and given ID
- guards had uniform and instructed to do whatever necessary to maintain law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Zimbardo observations

zimbardo acting as prison warden

A

day 1- guards harass prisoners
2 - prisoners rebelled, guards retailated
3 - prisoners act crazy
4 - guards exhibited ‘genuine sadistic tendencies’
6 - study was abandoned

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

zimbardo results

A

quickly took on assigned roles
– the situation led ordinary people to behave in extraordinary ways

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

critiquing Zimbardo

A
  • participants behaving how they think they should act/what ZImbardo wanted
  • zimbardo - people looking to him as authority
  • haslam + richter - recreate study, different behaviours observed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

thoughts and behaviours are shaped by:

A

what other people are doing
what we expect them to do
authority structures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

social situations have…

A

PoWeRfUL influence over actions

17
Q

what is a group?

A

a number of people/things that are located/gathered together

18
Q

social psyc - what is a group?

A
  1. Campbells notion of entitativity
  2. tajfels notion of social identity
19
Q
  1. Campbell - entitativity
A

the property of a group, appear to be distnct and bounded entity
1. common fate - individuals experience inter-related outcomes
2. similarity - extent individuals resemble each other
3. proximity - distance btwn individuals

20
Q

Entitativity scale

A

low - unstructured + independent
high - interdependent + structured

groups in terms of real perceivable properties of group

group research - group perormance

21
Q

audience effects:

social facilitation

A

presence of others
- eg cyclists rode faster with others
- chickens, fish eat more when others present

22
Q

social inhibition

A

eg. higher quality philosophical arguments when alone

23
Q

drive theory

A

presence of others is autonomically arousing + increases dominant response

24
Q

Zajonc

how drive theory works

example

A

asked to play instrument at party
gets nervous increase dominant response
1. well-learned = performance increases (facilitation)
OR
2. dont know the song well, dominant response incorrect = performance decreases (inhibition)

25
social loafing
ringlemann effect pull rope - individual productivitty decreases with group size obtained output less than potential
26
steiner model of group productivity
actual perfomrnace = potential subtract loss potential is sum of individual process loss = motivation + cooridination loss
27
factors that increase social loafing
larger group size - diffusion of responsibility lower identifiability low expectation - dispense efforts lower importance and motivation
28
2. social identitty theorty tajfel
social idenitiy = part of self-concept that related to our group memberships
29
# Social Ideneity theory being part of a group means:
1. have cognitive knowledge that you belong 2. membership has positive/negative value 3. membership leads to emotions towards own in group, and out-group
30
social identity (Fajtel) vs social entitativity (campbell)
1. campbell ignores sense of self, SIT is group in terms of self 2. defining self in terms of group =positive group distinctivness, vs campbell - distinctiveness as state of being and social perception 3. 3. group is distinctive in intergroup relations, vs campbell - entitative group doesnt need relation to other groups
31
cyclists
entitative group - move in unison with uniforms social identitiy - ride on road with cars, compete for road, outgroup members
32
group memberships are good/bad
- belonging is a predictor of health - multiple social identities helps life changes
33
overall
2 different thinkings of groups - social identity vs entitativity Performance in group better (facilitation) and worse (inhibition) than alone Group memberships/social identities good for health Us vs them dynamics can negative impact social change