social psychology

social psychology

social psychology

social psychology

the scientific study of thoughts, feelings and behaviours of individuals in social situations and how they are influenced by actual, imagined or implied presence of others

guiding principles of social psychology

• the social brain: our brains are good at taking in and processing social information

• the power of the situation: the social contexts we find ourseleves in shape the way we think, feel and act

• levels of analysis: dynamics in individual and group situations and the type of relationships

• critical thinking: healthy skepticism

social brain functions

• understanding the self and its relation to others

• forming judgements about others

• perception os socially relevant cues (face, eye gaze, expression)

• understanding social categories and our place in them

• social decision making

• understanding and making inferences about others

power of the situation

the behaviour of people is always a function of the field of forces around them

• human behaviours results from a combination of particular personal attributes in a particular situation (the person and the situation interaction)

level of analysis

analysing the social situation and relationship type - individual (relationship with the self) , interpersonal (with other individuals), intragroup (other people in our group) , intergroup (people in different group)

challenges and benefits of social psychology

challenge - social psychology is a study of context (not all findings are true in every situation)

its hard to replicate concepts of social psychology as its hard to study

benefits

• gives us insight to out own and others behaviours

• aids our understanding in causes and consequences of current events

personality and social context

whether we are introverted or extroverted in a social scenario depends on how we rate our selves

• if we rate our true selves lower, we are more likely to be introverted in social situations

• if we rate our true selves higher, we are more likely to be extroverted in social situations

self identity

part of who we are comes from personality identity, social identity and cultural identity (who are we, as individuals, based on groups and upbringing)s,

additionally a big part of who we are comes from the groups we belong to (so identity isn’t smth unique to us which distinguishes us from others)

social identity; self -categorisation theory + social me theory

the base of human procesess

categorisation: a basic human process where we group things together to help us understand the world

• it emphasis the differences between groups and the similarities within groups

• we categorise people into in-groups (groups which we belong to) and out-groups (groups which we don’t belong)

who we are depends on the context in which we find ourselves (sister, daughter, student, worker) -shifting in salience of different identities

William James - social me - the social context we are in determines our personality and who we are in one context - work, isn’t who we are in another (home)

cultural identity

our sense of self is derived from groups we belong to that have distinct culutre (nationality, ethnicity, social class)

• can be fostered directly (through socialisation efforts) or indirectly (through background exposure, predispositions of seeing the world in a particular way)

culture and the social self

individualist (independent); the self is an autonomous entity separate frrom others, where ppl assert their independence and celebrate their uniqueness (my enviro should change to fit me - western enviros)

collectivist (interdependent) : self is fundamentally connected to other people; ppl seek to fit into a community and fullfill appropiate roles ( I should change to fit my enviro - asian, latino)

4 cores basic psychological needs of humans - Willy

• belonging; be accepted by other

• self-esteem: the need to be liked by others

• control: to achieve our goal (need for control)

• meaning: to have relevance in the world

self-esteem - the sociometer hypothesis

things that make us feel good about ourselves (self esteem) are also the things that make others accept and like us (belonging)

• high self esteem - signals social inclusion

• low self esteem - signals social exclusion - signa;s people need to socialise more

social comparisons theory - festinger - types of comparison

two assumptions

1. we seek to gain accurate self evaluation

2. comparison with others people help us reality-check our own slef evaluation

two types of comparison

1. downwards comparison: when we compare ourselves to others we think are worse than us on a partiuclar dimesnions (can improve our slef evaluation)

2. upwards comparisons: when we compare ourselves to others we think are better than us on particular dimension (can worsen our self evaluation)

self evaluation maintenance model - how we evaluate ourselevs

same two assumptions

two processes - where it either improves or worsens our self esteem based on if the domain is relevant or irrelevant to the self

• reflection: other people improve our self evaluation

  usally happens when evaluation happens in a domain not relevant to the self

• comparison; other people worsen our self evaluation

  usually happens when evaluation happens in domain relevant to the self

• self evaluation goes down becuase it invites unfavourable comparison with our own abilities

both processes are excaberatd with a close other

BIRG-ing Vs CORF-ing

BIRG-ing (Basking in Reflected glory)

• others success becomes our success

• align ourselves publicly with others

• motive for enhancement; we want to feel good

CORF-ing (cutting off reflected failiure)

• others failure becomes our failure ** unless we distance ourseleves publicly from those others

• motive for protection: we want to avoid feeling bad

better than averege effect

we view ourselves positively, that we think we are above average on a wide range of positive dimensions

3 ways of being apart from others

psychological distance: loneliness

social distance: social network centrality

induced distance: rejection and discrimination

Loneliness

subjective feelings of distress when social relations are not growing how we would like

• there is a discrepency in the level of connectedness we would like to have vs the level of connectedness we have

• can have worse phsyical health, fewer social. interaction, greater anxieety + depression (more likely), worsen life satisfaction

social networks and physical health / mental health

greater social integration = lower mortality

(more social interaction = lower death rates compared to people who have lower social connections with greater death rates)

loneliness is catching

people directly connected to a lonely person in a soical network are 52% more likely to be lonely (lonliness extends to friends or family - which is stronger when the lonley tie is with a friend) -when someone we know feels lonely we are more likely to feel lonely

this is due to

• induction: emotion contagion within a network

• homophily: similar people are connected (ppl feel lonely together)

• shared environments: exposure to the same social challenges

ostracism + why we do it

ostracism: (social shunning) Act of ignoring and excluding an individual or group by an individual or a group 

group reasons

• strengthen the group; make the group cohesive

• protect the group; correct unacceptable behaviour

individual reasons: to feel more powerful and in control

being ostracised harms basic psychological needs and makes us feel bad - no matter who does it

is social media good or bad for us (both reasons)

stimulation hypothesis: online interactions strengthen existing relationships and thus have social benefits

• active use to connect with others and stimulate self disclosure (as people become less concerned with how others view them)

displacement hypothesis: social media replaces offline face-to-face interactions, this incurring social costs

• passive use - less perceived social support + worse wellbeing

• increases loneliness + comparison worsens mental health

3 factors involved in making a first impression

snap judgments (how quick we form impressions) - impressions are made of brief glance (quick impressions) which affect perceivers thoughts and behaviours

thin slices (how much info we need to for accurate impressions); the ability to find patterns in events based on narrow windows of experience

• ability to draw relatively accurate conclusions about the emotions and attitudes of people in short interactions (sensing someone is angry based on tone of voice)

• snap judgement are formed more quickly than thin slices

person perception (info we use to form impressions); how we perceive others is influenced by a number of factors - based on warmth and competence

• warmth: is the intention friend or foe (good or bad) - traits - kind, sincere, generous, helpful

• competence; is this person capable of acting effectively - achieving goals - traits - inelligent, clever, etc

warm judgements are made more quickly than competence judgements

impressions via innuendo

we may infer qualities about people if we don’t have concrete evidence about those qualities

updating a first impression

impression formation; process where people combine information about others to make overall judgements (2 ways)

• algebraically: impressions formed based on mechanical combination of infromation abt a person

  summative (column total) , averaging (column avergae) and weighted averaging (multiple row values/ n)

• configurationally:based on gestalt principles - the whole is greater than the sum of its parts

  people combine information about someone into an overall impression that can be different from the simple sum of items of info about that person

  central triats: influential in impression formation

  peripheral traits: less influential in impression formation

** central traits change the impressions that we form as opposed to algebraically

getting to know someone

initial liking: factors that make us like others

getting closer: sharing and self disclosure

generally like ppl who share familiarity (greater exposure), similarity (greater similarity= like more) , and are attractive (more attractive = better sigma)

• mere exposure effectl the more we are exposed to smth the more we like it

strategies that help us get closer with others

communication - builds trust and imporves relationships by deepening connections with others

self-disclsoure: revealing personal information about urself not readily known by the other = builds trusts + cycle of more self disclosure (self disclose ± info about ourselves)

BUT - self disclosure should be relevant and appropriate for the setting (so not met with awkwardness)

sel disclosure not reciprocated = less liking and closeness

How can we influence people to comply with our requests?

• obedience - tell ppl what to do

• persuasion - talk ppl around

• social norms - subtle forms of influence

Milgrams obedience study + factors which increase and decrease obedience

the teacher (pts) had to administer shocks instructed by the experimenter, to the learner (confederate) when they made a mistake, with varying shock levels

results showed high level of obedience (68%) which could be due to

• authority figure has high status (experimenter)

• pts believe the authority figure (not themselves) is responsible for the actions

• escalation in obedience (already obeyed this whole time, even when consequence was mild)

  factors which reduce likelihood of obeying

• non-commited experimenter

• having a close relationships with the learner

• seeing other ppl disobey

• contradictory experimenter

replications - found ppl with more desire for control + empathy = more reluctant

Stanford prison experiment + criticisms

college students assigned as either prison guard or prisoner, where assigned roles resulted in greater aggression/power stunts despite normal prior behaviours

this study is an example of how we conform to roles and behave in ways expected by the situation

criticism

• not an experiment

• only 30% of guards behaved cruelly

• self selection - the words prison life in experiment biassed the sample population (more aggressive charactered ppl)

• demand characteristics: pts acted in accordance to what they assumed was expected

• zimbardo. encouraged guards to act in hostile ways (inclusive words -we, us them)

persuasion: emotion based approaches - the asian way

compliance with a request is higher when people are in a positive mood as

• requests seem less intrusive when we feel good

• emotion maintenance; we want to continue to feel good, and granting requests allows us to feel as tho we’re doing good

persuasion: reason based approaches

make decisions by weighing the pros and cons of engaging in a particular actions

• provide a good reason for ppl to agree to a request

norm of reciprocity

when someone does something for us, we feel pressure to help in return

power of commitment

once a choice has been made, people feel pressure from themseleves and other to act consistently with that commitment

• even if the commitment becomes increasingly costly

• this can be exploited by other

generarting compliance via door-in-the-face and foot-in-the-door

door in the face (fuelled by reciprocity) - like bargaining

• ask for a very large favour that will certainly be refused, then follow the request with a more modest favour

• people feel compelled to respond to a concession by making their won concession

foot in the door (fuelled by commitment)

• make a small request to which most people agree, then follow it up with a larger request that was the real favour all along

• we don’t want to fo back on our words; so we comply with the favour as it becomes part of our self image

elaboration likelihood model

explain hows people change their attitudes in response to a persuasive message

• central: people think carefully and deliberately about the content of the message, attending to the argument strength

• peripheral: people attend to easy-to-process, superficial cues related to argument length or message source

motivation and ability factors (issue personally relevant, and knowledge in domain)—> process —> factors promoting attitude change (quality of argument)

norm-based approaches

our tendency to conform to the behaviours of others around us can be harnessed to achieve compliance

types of social influence

majority influence - when most group members behave in a certain way, one tends to behave in a similar fashion

minority influence - even if there is a strong majority, a consistent minority in the group can affect group members’ attitudes and behaviours

factors which affect majority influence

anonymity - when we privately write, rather than publicly say our answer - decreases conformity

groupon unanimity 0 one person dissecting - reduced conformity

expertise and status - we are more likely to confrom to view of experts on a topic

group size conformity increases when more ppl agree

minority influence - majority opinion does not always pravail

normative VS informational influence

normative influence: we are influenced by others because we want to gain their social approval or avoid their disapproval

• more common in majority influence

informational influence: we are influenced by others because we accept information from them as evidence about reality

• more common in minority influence

social loafing + why does it occur + how to avoid

the tendency to exert less effort when working on a group task in which individual contributions cannot be monitored (as they think other group members will do it) - motivation is low

deindividuation: people feel they can ‘hide in the crowd’ and avoid the negative consequences of slacking off

equity: people have preconceived ideas that people don’t work hard in groups, so reduce their own effort

reward: people feel their personal efforts won’t be recognised even if they try hard

avoid

• assign responsibilities and tasks - gives accountability

• establish clear standards and rules for what food performance looks like

• evaluate individual performance as well as group performance

social facilitation (opposite of social loafing)

we don’t always slack off in groups, the presence of others boosts us (more likely on simple tasks than complex and when personal effort can be identified and motivation is high)

• co-action effects: we performs better at tasks when we do them with other people

• audience effects: we perform better at tasks when we are watched by other people (due to heighten physiological arousal and evaluation apprehension)

altruism + competitive altrusim

prosocial behaviour that benefits others without regard to consequences for oneself, occurring due to

social reward: being esteemed or valued by others (eg” praise, recognition)

personal distress: reduce our own distress about others suffering

empathic concern: identifying with someone in need and intending to help

competitive altruism: people are motivated by social reward, and try to out do one another in altruisitc acts

bystander invention + why don’t bystanders intervene

assistance given by a witness to someone in need

• some people may be reluctant to help or intervene (smoke under door experiment)

diffusion of responsibility: the presence of other people reduces each person’s sense of responsibility

pluralistic ignorance: each bystander may be uncertain about the legitimacy of the ‘emergency’ - see (lack of) reactions from others and decide it musnt be dangerous

evaluation apprehension: people fear making mistakes and being seen as foolish, which makes them reluctant to intervene in critical situations

effect is stronger in groups than alone (but People who pulled alone pulled harder than those who pulled in a group.)

reverse bystander effect - people more likely to help in groups than alone

people are more likely to help if they know how to/know they can help

factors increasing likelihood of helping / reducing bystander effer

1. reduce ambiguity of the situation - gather information about what is happening and how to respond

2. speak up - discuss with others around you whether this is an emerngeyc situations and what to do

3. invite empathy - for the victim - see them as a real person with feelings rather than a nameless indinv

bystander effect was reduced when (more ppl helped when)

• situation was more dangerous

• perpetrator was present

• vicim was a close other

• other bystanders were real (rather than instructed confederates)

prejudice and discrimination

P:an attitude or affective response (positive or negative) towards a group and its members

d: favourable or unfavourable treatment of individuals based on their group membership

types of prejudice

blatant prejudice (old fashioned): explicit rejection of the outgroup/belief in inferiority of the outgroup - no contact and outwards expression of negativity towards the outgroup

subtle prejudice: covert forms of prejudice - rejection of prejudice beliefs while still feeling animosity (im not racist but) - unconscious negative feelings towards memebers of certain groups - measured implicity, avoid sitting neat ppl

where does prejudice come from

• groups compete for the same limited resource (Robbers cave experiment)

  intergroup hostility: develops because another group exists

minimal group paradigm: method to reveal the minimum condition required for ingroup favouritism and outgroup derogation to occur - show ingroup bias even with arbitarily formed groups

found - People assigned fewer points to outgroup members, even if it also meant assigning fewer points to ingroup members.

social identity theory

our identity is comprised in large part of social groups we belong to

• therefore in order to feel good abt ourselves, we strive to feel good about and boost the status of our ingroups (ppl more identifed with the group tend to show greater ingroup favouritism)

cognitive miser

people tend to favour simpler ways of thinking than more effortful ways of thinking

prejudice as a byproduct of our tendancy to categorise things and ppl

seeks to avoid spending money and avoid sensing cognitive effort - the cognitive perspective of prejudice

perspectives of prejudice

cognitive perspective: give rise to stereotypes, which help us process information rapidly and efficiently but can be biased (believe that all members of a group have the same qualities, which define the group and differentiate it from other groups)

1. define people in terms of their social category membership

2. sterotypes are shared (amount to more than one persons’ opinion)

economic perspective: between groups which compete for the same limited resource - outlined through realistic group conflict theory (predicts prejudice will increase under conditions of economic difficulty such as high unemplyment)

prejudice reduction

economic lessons: reduce intergroup competition and increase intergroup cooperation - rovvert cave

motivational lessons set ingroups norms against prejudice and for tolerance

cognitive lessons 0 weaken the effects of sterotypes by exposing people to individuals from lots of different groups