Social Module

Social comparison theory

where we evaluate our attitudes/values and beliefs by comparing them to the attitudes/values and beliefs of others. You will usually compare this info from people who aren’t vastly different from you 

Upward social comparison

we compare ourselves to someone who is better); motivating

Downward social comparison

(we compare ourselves to someone who is worse); primarily done to make you feel better about yourself 

A silver medalist will make upward or downward comparisons? Whereas a bronze medalist will…

Silver: Upward social comparison (what could I have changed to get me that gold; less happy) 

Bronze: (compares themselves to everyone else who did worse below them; happier)

Enlightenment effect

where you learn about a psychological concept, it changes your behavior in the real world. 

Halo effect

when 1 person has a good quality, we assume they have many good qualities. Most common

Self fulfilling prophecy

people behave as they are expected to behave; can lead them to accidentally exhibiting negative traits or behaviors

Attitude components

Components (what makes up an attitude) EX: chocolate pie (ABCs) 

1st component: Affective (what does this component make you feel emotionally?-- I like chocolate pie so im happy) 

2nd component: Behavior( How you WANT to respond to that thing; inclination towards a behavior –You love pie and want to stuff your face in it but it’s thanksgiving with people around)

3rd component: Cognitive (what we think about a thing) 

Characteristics of attitudes (Dimensions)

• Strength (if you feel very strongly with an attitude you’re unlikely to change; it will affect that attitude and behavior relationship. 

• Accessibility (how easily does that attitude come to your mind? 

• Ambivalence (when you have positive and negative attitudes towards the same object)

What are the 4 attitude components?

• Source: the person or entity trying to cause change in someone else.

• Receiver: the person that the source wants to change

• Message: what you’re saying to try to cause change 

• Channel: The way in which the message is delivered (kendall jenner dumb ad campaign for coke that “solved police brutality”) 

Cognitive dissonance (ways we can see attitude change)

when we hold to ideas that are opposite from one another, it makes us feel uncomfortable. We deal with this discomfort by changing something. 

Self perception theory (ways we can see attitude change)

Where you are going to change your attitudes by looking at your behaviors. When your behaviors are inconsistent, you might change your attitudes. (Ex: i thought minecraft was stupid but then I started to play it with simeon a lot and now that i looked at my behaviors are inconsistent with my attitude, I adjusted my attitude/opinion on minecraft). 

Impression Management theory (ways we can see attitude change)

the attitude that you have accessible that you're using at that moment is going to differ from the impression you are trying to give off. You will do this in order for it to fit with that (memes if linkedin, facebook, ig and tinder photos

(Elaboration likelihood model; ways we can see attitude change) → central pathway route

focuses on changing your attitude by having a really strong and persuasive message. Can create more long lasting change. EX: political ads to convince you this is the right person to vote for.

(Elaboration likelihood model; ways we can see attitude change) →  peripheral route

tries to create change by distracting you from the message. Can cause change in the present but you won’t see it long lasting. EX: sugary cereals with cute mascots with prize inside when you buy the cereal. 

Foot in the door (start small get big)

(start small get big) the idea that you start with a small request, and get the person to say yes. Then you get progressively larger and large requests with the idea that the person will say yes. We don’t want to stop saying yes so that “you’ll still like me”, and we want to remain consistent. 

Door in the face

(start big get small): You ask for a ridiculously large request to start with expecting that person to say no, then you follow it up with your actual request that the person is more likely to stay yes to. (EX; mom can I live with my cousins. Okay fine can I have a sleepover). 

Stable attribution

if think behavior is likely to continue in the future

Unstable

if i think behavior may not continue  in the future

Internal Attributions

It’s because of the person that led them to engage in this behavior. (A person who speeds on the highway that loves need for speed exhibits this)

External attributions

more about the environment; something outside of that person that is affecting their behavior (a person who speeds on the highway only because the speed limit was unclear exhibits this).

Internal stable attribution

(they like to drive fast, personality characteristic unlikely to change they’ll continue to drive fast)

Unstable internal attribution

person is only speeding because they are late to work; doesn’t mean they will always speed

Stable external attribution

speed limits were confusing to figure out so that’s unlikely to change because that’s how the speed limits are in that area that person is driving in 

Unstable external attribution

the reason for speeding is that their brakes broke (hopefully that doesn’t continue). 

(individualism) Individualist culture

cares more about the individual; more likely to make internal attributions

Collectivist culture

cares more about the group; more likely to make external attributions

Fundamental attribution error

we’re more likely to make external attributions for others; internal attributions for ourselves. Likely to form uneven expectations of attributions 

Defensive attribution error

we make internal attributions for our successes and external attributions for our failures. We do this to preserve our self-esteem. Ex; It’s not my fault I failed it is because it was ….

Stereotypes

shortcuts we make in order to ease the processing of meeting new people. Tend to be more cognitive; based on thoughts and expectations. 

Subtyping

happens when you encounter someone that goes against your stereotype. You tend to be reluctant to abandon your stereotype so instead you create a subtype (an exception to that stereotype). Building an exception that will work for you in the future

Perceptual confirmation

we process information as it fits; so that it confirms and upholds the stereotypes we make. 

Illusory Correlation

we believe we have experienced more instances that uphold our stereotypes than we don’t. A common reason for this is because we are more likely to remember those experiences instead; confirmation bias plays a role here.

(Ways to decrease stereotypes/discrimination)Out-group Homogeneity:

where we think members of an outgroup are more similar to each other than to members of your in group. (ppl from suny albany are all the same but bing people are special)

(Ways to decrease stereotypes/discrimination) Contact Hypothesis

The more contact you have w/ an outgroup, the less likely you are to engage in prejudice, stereotypes or discrimination (doesn’t have to be physical contact can be like with watching movies/tv) 

(Ways to decrease stereotypes/discrimination) Superordinate goals

Where you give in group members and out group members a goal that they have to work together to accomplish. 

Common knowledge effect

You are more likely to bring up info that all group members share (in a group setting); rather than information that specializes to you. 

Social loafing

States that in a group setting you work less hard than if you were working individually. The person thinks the group will hide the lack of effort form your part.

Group Polarization

Where a group may come to a more extreme decision than any individual member would. Common with juries (they come up with extreme sentences than any juror would if they were alone

Groupthink

The group all comes to the same decision without presenting alternatives. No one wants to stick out; echo chamber of yes; no one wants to propose a new idea and eventually everyone just says the same thing

Deindividuation

Where your identity matters less but instead you're focused more on the group identity. Your own values/beliefs won;t matter–what the group thinks/values/believes matters more.  

What are the 3 general types of influence?

Conformity, Compliance and obedience

Conformity

Where you go along with the group without a specific request. Going along with group norms/how you think you should behave even though no one is asking you to do those things. 

Compliance

where you go along with a specific request.

Obedience

Most powerful form of compliance. going along with the request of an authority figure. This type of request will make you feel more pressured or make you feel that the punishments/consequences are much more severe than if it weren’t coming from an authority figure that has power over you. 

Informational influence

Where you go along with the group because you genuinely believe that the group is right, and that you are wrong. Conformity behavior is longer lasting with this. 

Normative influence

Where you go along with the group, so that you are accepted and not rejected. Influence will end as soon as you aren’t in that environment anymore (when the group disappears). 

Unanimity

The group should be unanimous; everyone should be adhering to the same belief or statement: if there is no unanimous agreement; their won't be pressure 

Co-conspirator

as long as there is someone within the group going against someone in the group, they are also more likely to go against the whole group. You will lower your conformity and the co-conspirator will cause you to like the rebel more to form more positive opinions.

Group size

The larger the group; the stronger the pressure to conform. Positive correlation between group size and pressure to conform.

Anonymity

If your response is anonymous, it will negate normative influence/

Closeness; temporal closeness

Closeness: if the authority figure is spatially close to you, you are more likely to obey.

Temporal closeness: If the authority figure tells you to do something in that moment you’re more likely to do it than if they told you to do something a week later.

Legitimate Authority

You have to make sure that person is an authority figure; if you doubt that they are then you are less likely to obey. 

Prestige

Anything that suggests a level of status to that authority figure. The more status; increases the likelihood to obey. 

Depersonalized victim

Not think of the person you are doing something to as not a human being so it’s easier to obey. 

Defiant Model

If we see someone else disobeying the authority figure, we feel more comfortable disobeying as well. 

Sternberg’s triangular theory of love

There are three elements that come into play that help us decide whether or not we love someone:

Intimacy, Passion, Commitment

Intimacy

a close connectedness or bonded feelings

Passion

Where you find the person physically beautiful; you are physically attracted to them; hot, physical attraction  

Commitment

The conscious decision to love and continue to love a person. 

True or false: strong relationships can exhibit one of the 3 components of sternberg’s theory of love.

False. Strong relationships have all three of these. 

Matching hypothesis

we are attracted to someone generally who are an equal level of physical attractiveness to us. 

Very physically attractive people are also more likely to be friends with more physically attractive

Facial symmetry

we find people with faces more symmetrical more attractive 

Attitude alignment

Where in a committed relationship, people’s attitudes move closer together (meet in the middle). Unlikely to happen with politics. Similar to self perception theory.

Proximity

We like people who are physically close to us. (why tinder is so successful because it is location based). 

True or false: proximity is the strongest component of attraction.

true

Relational Aggression

where you are seeking to harm another’s relationship: harm professional relationships can be an example. Any harm to relationships counts. Women are more likely for this  

Physical aggression

actively seeking to physically harm another person. Men more likely with this

Hostile aggression

Spontaneous, high tempered aggression. 

Instrumental aggression

aggression that serves a goal; aggression done in order for you to achieve some kind of goal.

Roles

certain roles have an expectation of aggression. (Ex hockey players have higher aggression than in baseball)

Stanford Prison Experiment

Very influential study done by an experimenter who was a horrible person. Researchers brought men from Stanford to be randomly assigned to be a guard or a prisoner. The guards acted fairly inhumanly to the prisoners. 

Kin selection

we are more likely to help those that are more closely and biologically related to us. You are more likely to help your sister than your cousin in other words. 

Altruism

Helping those in your environment

Reciprocal Altruism

We are more likely to help those that we think can help us. 

Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

It is not possible to help someone without getting some kind of benefit to yourself.This hypothesis exists because it is pretty rare that you can do some good action and not get some good emotional benefit. Like for when you do a good deed.

Bystander effect

Says that the more people that are around, the less likely you are to receive help. A thing because the responsibility ends up being diffused by the others around you.

Social responsibility norm

we are more willing to help those whom we see as more vulnerable. (kids and animal donations: You feel that there is a barrier for them to help themselves so you step in)

Cognitive Miser

Humans don’t like to put a lot of effort into their thinking; we like to conserve our resources rather than use it ; conservation of those resources can lead to bad decision making (basically taking shortcuts to make those decisions. 

Inductive reasoning

Where we draw general conclusions from specific evidence. Most detective work falls under this. 

Deductive reasoning

taking general statements and using those statements to understand specific conclusions. Not the way we typically think: Well known examples: Socrates is a man; all men are mortal → conclusion that Socrates is mortal. 

Syntax

Rules for meaning. rules for how we put words together to create meaning.

grammar

grammar: Rules for formatting. Specific rules for a specific language.

Genie Case study

occurred in late 1960s; horribly abused by her parents; 12 or 13 when rescued and didn’t know how to speak at that time period because she didn’t learn to talk. This was detrimental because she missed the critical period but still learned language. Conclude that language is a sensitive period but not a critical period. Genie was always a bit delayed with language learning but despite this, she was still able to learn

Homesign

The phenomenon that death children born into hearing households (family doesn't know sign language) so the death child will create their own sign language for communication 

Classifying a language

• Symbolic: the words/sounds/pictures are able to  represent things that aren't concrete and not in the environment

• Generative: A small number of symbols (the alphabet) can create an infinite number of words or messages 

• Structures: specific rules that allow for infinite, but understandable communication. 

Semantics

how we understand meaning, syntax, grammar; language altogether. 

Meaning can be looked at in 2 ways…

→ Denotation: dictionary definition of a word. Constant in culture

→ Connotation: (more useful way) the understood meaning of a word. Will differ

(Language acquisition) Sociocultural theory

focuses on observational learning or interactional learning. We learn by speaking with and interacting with those around us. The more you speak to a child (normal language not baby talk), they will tend to learn more words as they age 

(Language acquisition) Behaviorist perspective (skinner)

language is based on operational conditioning: we stop using words that are punished. Does not account for slang. 

(Language acquisition) Nativist perspective (chomsky)

: Language is an innate skill humans are born with 

(Language acquisition) Language acquisition device

a biological directive that facilitates speech. Something within our genes that drives speech. (behaviorist elements, nativist elements, and interactionist elements all matter here)  

Phonemes

the sounds that make up language. Sounds but no meaning behind them. Smallest unit of speech

Morphemes

smallest unit of meaning. Functionally the prefixes, suffixes, and root words. Combined to create different meanings. 

Receptive vocabulary

the words that we can understand. 

Productive vocabulary

the words that we use. 

True or false: receptor vocab is always larger than productive vocab.

True

Children are more likely to use which type of vocab?

Children can more quickly understand words (receptive vocab) than they can understand to use words.(productive)

Telegraphic speech

the simplistic language children start using as they are learning language that typically follows “Subject + verb” to avoid complexity → “mommy see” “baby draw’ 

(Language errors) Overextension

Where children use the world more liberally than they should . (Ex; They have a dog named Rex and now call every dog they see Rex too.