Social Psych Exam 2

Descriptive norms

how people actually behave

Injunctive/prescriptive norms

how one should behave

tight vs loose norms

tight less room for deviance

dynamic vs static norm

dynamic shows how norms are chaning vs static is stat rn. incr in eating meat vs 30%eat meat

Informational influence

agree driven by desire to be write and others might know more

Normative influence

agree driven by desire to be liked and fit in

Mimicry (ideomotor action and liking)

automatic/nonconcious. engage in mentally accessable behavior and incr liking of others

sheif autokinetic study

conform to estimated amount of dot movement

Asch line studies

conform to wrong length line

Factors for comformity

Group size, unanimity, cohesion, status, public response, public commitment, culture

Negitive state relief (compliance)

incr action to hlep mood of others when self distress

Reason, norm, and emotion based approaches to compliance

logic, social standards, or emotional

factors that incr and decr obediance

reactance- do opposite when freedom of choice threatened

asserting uniqueness-

minority influence- some disent inspires more

attachment theory

secure-reiable avoidant-unavalible, anxious-undependable

social exchange theory

people make relationship decisions by weighing costs and benefits

equity theory

we are motivated by fairness in relationships

communal and exchange relationships

communal for feelings of closeness and long term but exchange only recipocity

functional distance

closeness in terms of interaction opertunities

mere exposure effect

like things exposed to more

Halo effect

attractive people thought to have positive characteristics

contrast effect for self and others

exposore to attractive others leds us to see others/us as less atrractive

matching hypothesis

tendancy to match with those with similar attractivenes

maximization and equalization strategies of similarity

maximize similar-

balence theory, self-verification, reciprocity, phantom other techique where we prefer those who match personality

equalization- balence sililarity and difference

completementay hypothesis

no evidence that opposites attract

sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love

Passion (infatuation), intimacy (liking), and commitment (empty love)

romantic=passion + intimacy

compassionate=intimacy +commitmen

fatuous love= passion + commit

all 3= consumate love

the investment model of commitment

more commit to satifaction, investmen, and few alternative partners

the four horsemen of the apocalyse

Contempt, criticism, stonewalling, defensiveness (contempt most strongly)

sterotype content model

made up of warmth and competance

subtyping

compensatory steroytpe. those who disconfirm stertoype are seen as exceptions

modern racism

implicit racism

benovelent sexism

subjectly positive evaluations that undermine agency

schema theory of prejudice

Paired distinctiveness & illusory correlation

outgroup homogenetity effect

outgroup members more similar to each other than ingroup

minimal groups

not real groups still have impact on bias

social identity theory

our identities based on own group membership

basking in reflecting glory- of ingroup member sucess

cutting off reflected failure- with ingroup failures

outgroup denigration- hostility to outgroup

system justification theory

people get what they deserve. endorsed by rich and poor

social dominance theory

people naturally form and mainatin hierachies

realistic group conflict theory

robber cave-campers divided until pull bus together

superordinate goals- need cooperation and common goal

concelable stigma

consele an identiyt that makes you a target

sterotype threat

when facing negitive sterotype fear will verify the stertoype

shooter bias

racial bias over shoot or not shoot

minimal group paradigm

meaningless group still make inpact and favor ingroup

social facilitaiton

presentse of others affect performance

social inhibition

presense of others decr performance

zajonc’s social facilitation/presence of others model

presense of others inpacts performance

Evaluation apprehension hypothesis

concern about judged incr arousal

Mere presence of others hypothesis

others presence signals alert and arousal

Distraction-conflict hypothesis

conflict of distraction of others and the task incr arousal

social loafing

less effort in group when pooling contribution

Approach/inhibition theory of groups

high power means approach and risk vs low power safe and inhibit

Types of diversity

informational, social category, value

Group polarization

more extreme opinions after group

Deindividuation

loss of id to group

Wisdom of the crowd

combined answers to questions better than invd ansers

Groupthink

decr judgement by working towards concenus.

types of aggression

● Hostile aggression ● Instrumental aggression ● Relational aggression

bobo doll

children mirror agression

weapons effect

weapons around incr agressive

Frustration-aggression hypothesis

block goal driven behavior leds to agression

Scapegoat theory

frustration towards easy target

social rejection and aggression

powerful threat treated like pain in brain

Culture of honor

agressive to defend reputation

individual and situational factors that increase or decrease aggression

Provocation ● Ambient temperature ● Alcohol ● Income inequality

how to reduce agression

Not good evidence ○ Censorship ○ Catharsis ○ Heat reduction

● Good evidence ○ Complex vs. right/wrong thinking ○ Communication ○ Reconciliation

egoistic helping

increase own welfare

kin selection

more likely to help those genetic related

recipocal altruism

help those who help us

negitve state relief

someone else distress feel bad so help

Bystander Intervention Model

○ Steps

■ Notice the event ■

Interpret help is needed

■ Take responsibility

■ Knowing how/deciding to help

○ Obstacles

■ Distraction

■ Pluralistic Ignorance ■

Feelings of Incompetence /Lack of Knowledge ■

Diffusion of Responsibility

■ Costs Exceed Rewards

Pluralistic Ignorance

misconception of group norm

Diffusion of Responsibility

more people dilute likely to help

Rumination

intrusice and repetative thoughts

Catastrophizing

overempathize negitive part of event

Problem-focused coping

try to stop stressor

Emotion-focused coping

control emo response to stress

self distancing (stress)

view experience as an observer

Incremental theory

growth miindset

Entity theory

fixed mindset

Videotape Memory Model

not true

Reconstructive Memory Model

memory is active and can be changed

Misinformation effect

exposore to info after event leads to inaccurate recall

Loss aversion

tendancy for loss to have more impact that equal gain

Sunk cost fallacy

continue putting in becasue put in in past

Endowment effect

value an item higher because you own it

Status quo bias

perfer that current situtation stays the same

Hedonic well-being

seek pleasure and avoid pain

Eudaimonic well-being

life meaning and purpose