Social Psychology Exam 3

social impact theory

(performance before a group) where does the arousal come from in terms of when you are before a group, we will feel some type of excitement or nervousness, autonomic, arousal = f (strength x immediacy x number)

strength

(social impact theory - performance before a group) how much you care about the people you are presenting to

immediacy

(social impact theory - performance before a group) how on top of you is the audience, how much do you feel their presence

number

(social impact theory - performance before a group) when there is more audience we feel more autonomic nervous system arousal, rule that going from 9-10 adds more potential anxiety than 99-100

social facilitation

(performance before a group) arousal enhances the dominant response, arousal can affect us in multiple ways, if we are good at a task arousal improves performance, if we are not good arousal can impair or undermine performance, people who were bad at doing something had threat (vs. challenge) arousal when there was an audience

maze study

example of social facilitation, had people run through either difficult or simple corn maze, for easy maze people went faster with audience, for harder they went slower

Yerkes-Dodson

(performance before a group) for any one person in any one task there will be some sort of curve on how arousal impacts our performance; there will be some kind of optimal arousal, high or low arousal can be problematic, there is a different curve for different people for different tasks, the same person has different optimal arousals and curves depending on the type of specific task

intragroup behavior

when you are embedded within a small group, how we are affected by being embedded within a group, group vs. alone

social loafing

(intragroup behavior) when we are embedded within a group we do not work as hard as we do alone, there can be more loafing when there are more people, can reduce loafing when it is clear who is responsible for what

shouting study

example of social loafing, would have people shout into mic, either individually or in a group, could measure decibels of shouting, people shouted louder when they were shouting alone than when they were in a group, loafed more when more people, greater loafing for 8 than 6

swim meet

example of social loafing, manipulated whether the individual legs would be posted in addition to total time, found that the non-released leg groups went slower and had more social loafing, less social loafing when individual legs were released

deindividuation (intragroup behavior)

(social loafing - intragroup behavior) the notion that when my behavior isn't tied to my identity, we are freed to behave in a way that is not normal to them, could be negative or positive

halloween candy study

example of negative deindividuation, halloween candy with kids and the candy & quarters, mirror in front made the kids less likely to take anything, if the kids were in a costume and couldn't be identified they were more willing to take the candy and money

dark talking study

example of positive deindividuation, group interaction, put in common room and asked to talk, changed whether room was either dim or brightly lit, no visual identification in dim room, the people who had the group interaction in the dark room had a much more positive experience, disclosed more information about themselves, deindividuation freed up from anxiety

diffusion of responsibility (intragroup behavior)

(social loafing - intragroup behavior) sometimes the responsibility for the group effort is diffused when in a large group, when you are embedded in a group and it won't be clear your effort the responsibility is more diffused, causes social loafing

free riding

(social loafing - intragroup behavior) there could be a benefit from social loafing, it could be a good thing to not work as hard and have other people do the work, there is a temptation to social loaf to conserve energy and free ride on the backs of other people, problem is that this can happen to the whole group and no work will be done

group task types

(intragroup behavior) different types of the group and their goals have an impact on social loafing and the output

maximizing vs. optimizing

(group task types - intragroup behavior) group is trying to make as much as you can vs. best possible version, social loafing much more likely to happen in maximizing

additive vs. compensatory

(group task types - intragroup behavior) add much as you can vs. goal of accuracy, each group member puts in as much as you can and then total is added up in additive, can lead to social loafing when you can't tell the amount of work someone is putting in, people are less likely to social loaf in compensatory because they have to concentrate for accuracy

disjunctive vs. conjunctive

(group task types - intragroup behavior) group is as good as its best member vs. the group is only as good as its worst member, issue sometimes because social pressure doesn't always allow the best person to steer the group's answers

groupthink

(intragroup behavior) we often think that having more people involved to make a decision is helpful but this is not true, deterioration of decision making that results from structural flaws and ingroup pressures, often leading to a disastrous decision (ex: bay of pigs decision, challenger spaceship), combatting by first brainstorming/idea generation then followed by evaluation

groupthink variables

(groupthink - intragroup behavior) central leader, gatekeeper, pressure to uniformity, pluralistic ignorance, self-censorship

central leader

(groupthink variables - intragroup behavior) there is somebody who has the final say

gatekeeper

(groupthink variables - intragroup behavior) they can kind of control access to the central leader, can channel the messages the central leader is receiving, have a slant, is a powerful person that can have an effect on others in the group by rewarding and punishing people

pressure to uniformity

(groupthink variables - intragroup behavior) oftentimes there is a pressure from either gatekeeper or other members of coming to a decision, have to come to a decision that everyone agrees on

pluralistic ignorance

(groupthink variables - intragroup behavior) people who might have doubts about the outcome think that other people know more, defer because of lack of knowledge

self-censorship

(groupthink variables - intragroup behavior) the people with the greatest doubts self-censor and restrain themselves from bringing it up for fear of going against gatekeeper and because of pluralistic ignorance, evidence that many had doubts but went along with it

minority influence

(intragroup behavior) in order to have any influence on the majority, the minority must have consistency, confidence, and independence/objectivity

consistency

(minority influence - intragroup behavior) in order to have any influence on the majority you have to be consistent and stand your ground

confidence

(minority influence - intragroup behavior) must exude confidence that you are correct

independence/objectivity

(minority influence - intragroup behavior) you can't have a stake in the situation

leadership

(intragroup behavior) doesn't seem to be any personality characteristics, often two types of leaders, social-emotional leaders are good at feeling the vibe/listening to group members/improving morale, task leaders tend to be leaders that lay down the hammer/people to do what they need to do, research has shown that within groups it is important to have both types of leadership, best leaders can do both

social dilemmas

(large intragroup behavior) the conflict between wanting to maximize self-interest versus the interest of the group as a whole

types of social dilemmas

(large intragroup behavior) commons dilemma, public goods dilemma, general social dilemmas

commons dilemmas

(types of social dilemmas - large intragroup behavior) taking from a resource, problem is that if too many people take from a resource it will be taken from everybody, natural resource issues, livestock

public goods dilemma

(types of social dilemmas - large intragroup behavior) you have to contribute to the resource to keep it alive, (ex: NPR, most stations rely on contributors from the community to survive) as a listener, if nobody ever gives anything, the resource will be depleted

general social dilemmas

(types of social dilemmas - large intragroup behavior) there might be a group situation where you benefit from self-interest but if too many people do so it is a bad thing (ex: HOV lanes that encourage carpooling, some single people take advantage, if too many people do so than it becomes just as slow as other lanes)

ways to reduce selfishness across social dilemmas

(social dilemmas - large intragroup behavior) normative and informative social influence, might be ramifications including group anger if you act selfishly, descriptive (information about what most people do) and injunctive (how ought I behave, what should people do) norms, smaller groups (your behavior has a larger impact on the group as a whole), deindividuation and identifiability, operant conditioning (rewards/costs), legal measures (often last resort), people weigh the odds of being caught

destructive events

(large intragroup behavior) purposeful negative behavior (e.g. property destruction, violence, looting etc, 2026 champions league final (PLS), 2020 Kenosha, WI, 2011 Vancouver Riot after NHL Game 7 loss ("Facebook Riot"))

social rage approach

(large intragroup behavior) systemic issues (e.g. institutional racism, police misconduct, etc.) and dramatic events (e.g. unpopular verdicts, assassinations, sports defeats, etc.) crystalize into mass outrage and destructive events, however the majority of large gatherings/protests are peaceful, destructive behavior can occur in the aftermath of good (UNC)

how destructive events develop

(destructive events - large intragroup behavior) unifying event, convergent norm, the instigator

unifying event

(how destructive events develop - large intragroup behavior) mass of people, spontaneous/planned, "open", "closed", or "mixed"

convergent norm

(how destructive events develop - large intragroup behavior) a substantial enough number of like minded people who would favor destructive behavior

the instigator

(how destructive events develop - large intragroup behavior) just having many people in the same mood doesn't start destructive behavior, most people make the calculation that if they start it they might get caught, need someone willing to risk it anyways, instigator has to weight the risk of getting caught (ratio of crowd/police) vs. probability everyone will join in

how destructive events unfold

(destructive events - large intragroup behavior) contagion, emergent norm (once other people are behaving destructively it changes what you view as acceptable), deindividuation

discontinuity effect

(intergroup behavior) intergroup behavior is much more competitive than inter-individual behavior, often represented by the Prisoner's Dilemma Game

Prisoner's Dilemma Game

(discontinuity effect - intergroup behavior) there are six people split up into groups of three and put into separate rooms, have you elect a representative and talk with others, hand a decision in made by group, vs. individual vs. individual, ask for evidence on other person, neither can talk or one can or both can, in individual behavior they normally behave cooperatively and choose xx both times and put their trust in the other individual, in group behavior they try to maximize their output and take advantage about 50% of the time, subjects should not know when the final trial is, unclear whether decision is based on selfishness or fear, there is an alternative with a z response where you get two always (this is based on fear, there is a fear and greed response in the alt version)

reasons for intergroup competition

(intergroup behavior) schemas of fear/greed, social support for greed, diffusion of responsibility, deindividuation, reciprocity effects, ingroup-outgroup bias, social identity

schemas of fear and greed

(reasons for intergroup competition - intergroup behavior) kids develop the schema that in intergroup behavior it is ok to be competitive/want to win, don't have same schema for individual, greed is established first then fear follows

social support for greed

(reasons for intergroup competition - intergroup behavior) in intergroup behavior there is more normalcy for competitiveness and greed, having a confederate in the experiment that is arguing for the greedy response you are more likely to be greedy because there is social support

diffusion of responsibility (intergroup behavior)

(reasons for intergroup competition - intergroup behavior) when you are by yourself you are 100% responsible for your choice and they know you screwed them over, when you can't necessarily tell who made the decision and you are imbedded within a group there is less responsibility

deindividuation (intergroup behavior)

(reasons for intergroup competition - intergroup behavior) when we are imbedded within a group it is less likely that behavior is tied to someone individually so it frees up for competitiveness

reciprocity effect (intergroup competition)

(reasons for intergroup competition - intergroup behavior) individuals are quick to regret screwing the other person, in groups though there is almost a 100% chance that the other group will want to retaliate, in group that are competitive there is tit-for-tat responding, breakdown in trust

ingroup-outgroup bias

(reasons for intergroup competition - intergroup behavior) the tendency to think and have more positive attributions about your own group and make more negative attributions about other groups, this contributes to competitive behavior

social identity theory

(reasons for intergroup competition - intergroup behavior) talks about how part of self-esteem comes from group membership, you want your group to do better than other groups, this contributes to competitive and aggressive behavior in groups (ex: randomly assigned to group blue vs. green, had subjects do PDG, when its blue vs. green people behave more competitively)

reduction of intergroup competition

(intergroup behavior) simple contact effects (getting people from different groups to interact), robber's cave study (higher level goals), positive intergroup examples

robber's cave study

(reduction of intergroup competition - intergroup behavior) higher level goals, recruited ten-year old homogenous boys, had them come to camp and assigned to groups, allowed them to name group, had competitions, didn't take long for competitive behavior, tried simple contact but didn't work, what worked was higher level goals where two groups had to come together to solve problem

positive intergroup examples

(reduction of intergroup competition - intergroup behavior) can reduce intergroup competitiveness when you have an example of an interaction that goes well, if blue and green had a positive interaction competitiveness and ingroup-outgroup bias is decreased

first impressions (interpersonal attractions)

(interpersonal attractions) very powerful, they have an enormous impact, primacy effect, confirmation bias, overconfidence

primacy effect

(first impressions - interpersonal attractions) often the first things that we learn about a person we tend to put more weight on and has a greater impact than subsequent information

confirmation bias

(first impressions - interpersonal attractions) once we have a schema figured out about a person, we tend to use that as a guide to think about them in the future, we look for information that is schema consistent and ignore information that is inconsistent, lingering effect

overconfidence

(first impressions - interpersonal attractions) people are much more confident that a first impression about someone is more correct than it actually is, we want to categorize, we think we know them

physiological approaches

(interpersonal attraction orientation) pheromones, arousal as a cue, misattribution of arousal

pheromones

(physiological approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) mammalian species, may play a role in attraction for humans (ex: have people wear shirt for a week, speed dating and saw if women were more attractive to what they had been exposed to, didn't work), can indicate menstrual cycles

arousal as a cue

(physiological approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) when we feel autonomic nervous system arousal around a person we use it as a cue that we are attracted to the person

misattribution of arousal

(physiological approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) an autonomic nervous system response is labeled as attraction, bridge study, "secrets", maybe classical conditioning

bridge study

(misattribution of arousal - physiological approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) national park, across a deep gorge was a rope and plank bridge, scary, other bridge wasn't as scary, took female research assistant and put her in park uniform, had her be in middle of each bridge, had her stop male subjects and ask simple park questions, after another research assistant asked them how well the "trainee" did, embedded was questions about appearance, found that the guys going across rickety bridge were more likely to rate her as attractive and take number, bridge led to autonomic nervous arousal which led to feelings of attraction, other examples are shock study or couples pleasing vs exciting

"secrets"

(misattribution of arousal - physiological approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) if you have to keep your relationship a secret it can increase attractiveness towards that person, secrets are inherently exciting, (ex: ESP study with touch secret vs. not-secret, people who had to keep touch a secret rated the other person as more attractive)

classical conditioning

(misattribution of arousal - physiological approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) if you continue to associate a scary thing with a person then you may be more aroused and label it as attraction, something else is causing physiological arousal but it is paired with the person

learning theory

(interpersonal attraction orientation) explains interpersonal attraction as a result of positive reinforcement and learned associations, operant conditioning, reciprocity effects, flattery effects

operant conditioning

(learning theory - interpersonal attraction orientation) we are more attracted to people when our experiences with them are positive and rewarding

reciprocity effects (interpersonal attraction)

(learning theory - interpersonal attraction orientation) when we find out that someone likes us we are more inclined to like them back, makes us feel good and want to reciprocate

flattery effects

(learning theory - interpersonal attraction orientation) flattery works, giving compliments to a person is a strategy that will influence their attractiveness to you, rewarding them

social exchange theory

(interpersonal attraction orientation) people are drawn to and stay in relationships when the perceived rewards outweigh the costs, probability of outcomes, communal vs. exchange

probability of outcomes

(social exchange theory - interpersonal attraction orientation) variation on operant conditioning, rewards/costs we get from interacting with people matters, we weigh in the odds of obtaining them, needs to be a minimum threshold for success in asking someone out (75%) vs. the risks (ex: new student confederate dating someone vs. single, notecards, if he knows she is single those guys were significantly more likely to give help)

communal vs. exchange

(social exchange theory - interpersonal attraction orientation) communal relationships are where there is some level of closeness/intimacy where we expect to have future interactions with them, exchange relationships are more transactional/businesslike, we behave very differently in communal relationships vs. exchange, we are more likely to help/rely on communal relations, exchange relationships have limited closeness/less likely to help them, more likely to be attracted to our communal relationships that exchange relationships

contact effects

(interpersonal attraction orientation) we are more likely to be attracted to people who are closer and more familiar to us, proximity and familiarity

proximity

(contact effects - interpersonal attraction orientation) plays a very big role in who we are attracted to, we are much more likely to be attracted to those who we spend more time with, we are going to form more relationships with people we have more interactions with (ex: MIT housing), mere exposure where being exposed to someone more often predisposes us to like them more (ex: visual perception test where multiple characters were repeated, rate how much you like each slide, the more you were exposed the more you liked it)(ex: black bag study)

familiarity

(contact effects - interpersonal attraction orientation) we are predisposed to like somebody when they remind us of someone we had a positive relationship with in the past, if they remind us of someone we had a bad relationship with we will not like them (ex: drigotas moving schools), oftentimes seeing someone in the group who seems familiar reduces social anxiety (ex: job interviews)

trait approaches

(interpersonal attraction orientation) physical appearance, matching hypothesis, similarity, positivity effects, small imperfections

physical appearance (halo effect)

(trait approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) we assume that people who are attractive have other positive traits

computer dance study

(physical appearance - trait approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) surveys, invited freshman to dance, paired people for 45 minutes, headshots taken and other universities rate attractiveness, rate the experience, found only thing that predicted how much they liked the person was their level of physical attractiveness

first impressions (physical appearance)

(physical appearance - trait approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) benefits to being attractive in terms of hiring, everything can be equal but attractiveness and the more physically attractive person is more likely to be hired and have higher salary, jury's (physically attractive people are less likely to be found guilty), teacher ratings (attractive professors tend to get higher student ratings that unattractive)

social interactions

(physical appearance - trait approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) experience sampling example with opposite sex interaction, had headshots, physical sex did have an effect (especially for men), non-physically attractive women were more likely to initiate interaction, women who were physically attractive report being more lonely when they get older

little kids

(physical appearance - trait approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) newborn infants that were more attractive had mothers who spent more time with them, there can be subconscious action, babies spend more time looking at physically attractive faces, attractive kids will be called on/rewarded

persuasion techniques

(physical appearance - trait approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) health food cookie, attractive kids used different techniques to get people to eat cookies than less attractive, less attractive used actual persuasion techniques (or violence) instead of just looks, attractive kids were much more successful, older kids have learned how they are going to be treated based on their attractiveness so have difference in behavior

matching hypothesis

(trait approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) we tend to wind up in a romantic relationship with a partner that is about the same level of physical attractiveness as us, possible level of comfortability, if there is disparity there could be insecurity, more attractive person will have more people approaching them, theory that this happens because everyone seeks out most attractive people first then goes down with time (ex: cards) vs. we know our own attractiveness and deliberately seek out the people that are our same level, prof. speculates that with experience we learn to seek out comfortability and same level

similarity

(trait approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) we tend to be attracted to people who are similar in attitude to us because this makes our interactions go well, tend to be more attracted to people who are similar to us demographically (economically, race), personality is less important to be similar in terms of attractiveness, complementarity (opposites attract) research finds that the thing that was exciting that it was different becomes the thing that is the most annoying and dissatisfactory, people who are high in neuroticism (more negative affect, complain more, smile less, self-focused) are people who are more universally disliked and tend to have more conflict in relationships and have relationships end

positivity effects

(trait approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) people do like and prefer people that are more positive in general, if people laugh or smile more or are easygoing, you will make a better impression if you are positive in nature

small imperfections

(trait approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) sometimes in a sea of someone being really perfect we prefer to have them have some kind of small imperfection (ex: guest lecturer who was confederate actor, had to make lecture flawless but had him knock over bottle of water, ratings of the lecture were higher when there was a mistake), small imperfections are endearing, we like it when there are little quirks

evolutionary approach

(interpersonal attraction orientation) mammalian species, our impact on the species is reproduction, inherent drive towards reproduction, macro-level theory, large trend that doesn’t predict a specific couple especially well, survival/reproduction, “differential parental investment”, mate preferences, jealousy, child abuse

survival and reproduction

(evolutionary approach - interpersonal attraction orientation) we have to be able to survive, whatever adaptations that are good continue, the only way to have an impact on the species is to have offspring

“differential parental investment”

(evolutionary approach - interpersonal attraction orientation) men and women play very different roles in the reproductive process, men are less sure of paternity, men can have as many offspring as they want because of larger window, many offspring with different women, women are sure of maternity and more limited window of fertility and go through dramatic physical changes with each offspring, you might see different investment in men vs. women, women are more invested in terms of feeding and caring for their kids

mate preferences across the genders

(evolutionary approach - interpersonal attraction orientation) (ex: rating of what matters to people in romantic partners, differences in men/women wanted, men valued physical attractiveness, women valued resources), men value physical attractiveness evolutionary because historically attractive people are healthy and is linked to successful vaginal childbirth, women value resources because they are more invested in any one offspring and need to ensure survival of offspring, marry older men bc they have had more time to gather resources, men value a younger partner, kind of a sexist theory

jealousy

(evolutionary approach - interpersonal attraction orientation) physical vs. emotional jealousy, male sexual jealousy & homicide, (ex: have people imagine emotional cheating vs. physical cheating, women were more upset to imagine having partner fall in love, men more upset by sex) falls within “differential parental investment”, women feared resources being taken away, men preyed upon paternity uncertainty, the primary reason why women are murdered is male sexual jealousy or male control issues

child abuse

(evolutionary approach - interpersonal attraction orientation) stepkids and adopted kids are more likely to be the victims of physical and emotional abuse, genes are not in child

social cognition approaches

(interpersonal attraction orientation) illusion vs. accuracy, attribution effects, relationship schemas, attachment theory

illusion vs. accuracy

(social cognition approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) when do we like it when our partner sees us as better than we are vs. see us accurately, it is nice when we have a romantic partner who sees us a little bit higher on our traits than we see ourselves, has to be within the realm of possibility, having some illusions of traits can be beneficial, accuracy of attitudes matters greatly, having our partner accurately infer what we like and don’t like matters, do we fit, influences the extent to which interactions are mutually rewarding

michealangelo effect

(illusion vs. accuracy - social cognition approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) having a partner who sees us as who we want to be can be more beneficial in helping us become more like who we want to be

attribution effects

(social cognition approaches - interpersonal attraction orientation) similar to self-serving bias, look at attributions couples make for each other’s behaviors, couples that are doing well make internal attributions for positive behavior and external attributions for negative behavior, if couples flip the pattern the relationship can go bad pretty quickly, if you think they are doing hurtful things on purpose the natural tendency is to want to hurt them back, behavior flows