Social Psychology Exam 3 (Ch. 8, 9, 10)

Conformity

A change in one's behavior due to the eal or imagined influence of other people

can occur autonamitcally/nonconsciously

People conform because:

- unsure on what to do

- we dont want to be ridiculed/punished

group norms --> influence

Compliance

responding favorably to an explicit request by another person

You do it because the person asked you to

No authority over you

Direct request → influence

Obedience

commands from an authority

You do it because the person has authority over you

A social norm

Without it, there would be chaos

We are socialized to obey legitimate authority figures (we feel pressure to obey them)

Informational Social Influence

relying on other people as a source of information to guide our behavior, which leads to conformity because we believe that other's interpretation of an ambiguous situation is correct

Easier Definition: influence of others that leads us to conform because we see them as a source of information to guide our behavior

We believe that other's interpretation of an ambiguous situation is more correct than ours and helpful when choosing an appropriate course of action

When do we engage in informaiton social influence?

Situation is ambiguous

Situation is a crisis

- Need immediate action, may panic

- Look at how others respond

- Might not always be right

The other people around you are experts

Need to be accurate

Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Study

Autokinetic Effect: the illusion of motion

Ambiguous stimuli, private acceptance

Judged the movement of the dot of the light alone

2 days later did the task with 2 other participants, then again, and again

Question: did hearing responses of the dot movement differ from their own influence participants?

As the attempts went on, they conformed more and more

Private Acceptance

conforming to other people's behavior out of a genuine belief that what they are doing or saying is right

Public Compliance

conforming to other people's behavior publicly without necessarily believing in what the other people are doing or saying

Asch's Line Study showed public compliance with the group's beliefs but not private acceptance of them

Asch Line Study:

Task: judging line length

7 confederates and 1 participant

Confederates were saying the wrong answer on purpose

Results: 75% conformed at least once and only 24% never conformed

Unambiguous stimuli, public compliance

Social Norms

the implicit or explicit rules a group has for the acceptable behaviors, values, and beliefs of its members

Exists because deviation is frowned upon

Normative Social Influence

going along with what other people do to be liked and accepted by them, which leads to public conformity with the group's beliefs and behaviors but not always private acceptance of them

Easier Definition: influence of others that leads us to conform in order to be liked and accepted by them

Classic normative reasons for conforming are because we do NOT want to...

- Attract attention

- Feel like an idiot

- Be rejected

Social Impact Theory

the idea that conforming to social influence depends on the group's importance, its immediacy (closeness in time and space), and the number of people in the group

Conformity increases as the size of the group increases until the group reaches 4 or 5, conformity does not increase much

Allies in Dissent

are other people not conforming?

If just one person dissents from the group, it'll give others the courage to stand up and not conform

Idiosyncrasy Credits

the tolerance a person earns, over time, by conforming to group norms

If enough credits are earned, the person can, on occasion, deviate from the group without retribution

Minority Influence

the case where a minority of group members influences the behavior or beliefs of the majority

Injunctive Norms

people's perceptions of what behaviors are approved or disapproved of by others

What behaviors are approved or disapproved of by others

Descriptive Norms

people's perceptions of how people actually behave in given situations, regardless of whether the behavior is approved or disapproved of by others

How people actually behave in a situation

Norm of Reciprocity

when someone does something for you, it obligates you to do something back

Very powerful and strong because we don't want to feel indebted

"I scratch your back, you scratch mine"

Christmas Card Study

Randomly selected 200 names from phone book and sent each a

Christmas card

Wanted to see how many ppl would respond

Result: 87% of people returned a card

Door in the Face Technique

social influence strategy in which first asking people for a large request that they will probably refuse makes them more likely to agree later to a second, smaller request

Easier Definition: large request followed by smaller request; creates pressure to comply with second, smaller request

Sequential request technique

Works because it creates guilt from saying no to the first, large request

Works because the relative smallness of the second request can be seen as a concession by the requester

- Due to this concession, we want to reciprocate by fulfilling the second request

Foot in the Door Technique

social influence strategy in which getting people to agree first to a small request makes them more likely to agree later to a second, larger request

Easier Definition: a small initial request followed by a second, larger one

Sequential request technique

Opposite to door in the face technique

- In this one we want ppl to say yes to the first request (no like the door in the face when we want them to say no)

It works bc "I complied w the first request, why not the second"

It works bc ppl want to be seen as consistent

That's Not All Technique

adding something to the original offer

When the initial deal gets "sweeter"

Works because adding something to the original offer can be seen as a concession, creating some pressure to reciprocate

Propaganda

a deliberate, systematic attempt to advance a cause by manipulating mass attitudes and behaviors, often through misleading or emotionally charged information

The Milgram Study

Wanted to know how the holocaust happened

Designed landmark study to test the influence of obedience and authority on normal people

Method:

- Assigned teacher or learner role

- Word pair task

- Told to shock learner when wrong (teacher can't see the person, but can hear them)

- Incremental voltage increase

What happens:

- At 150, the confederate protests

- At 345, confederate stops answering

- But the experimenter (guy in lab coat) in the room says they must continue

Results:

- 62.5% of ppl administer all 30 shock levels of shock

- Average maximum shock was 360 volts

- 80% of participants continued after the learner cried out in pain, saying that his heart was bothering him

Obedience dropped when...

- Learner in the same room (40%)

- Teacher held learners hand on shock plate (30%)

- Remoteness of the victim makes obedience much easier (think of modern warfare... we don't need to be there to kill ppl)

Variations of the study:

- Obedience dropped when...

- Run in office building (48%)

- Experimenter gave commands by phone (20%)

- Ordinary person replaced experimenter (18%)

- Seeing other participants refuse (0%)

Recent replication of study:

- Used modern ethical guidelines

- Participants told they could leave at any time

- Results were nearly identical to Milgram findings!!!!

Social Group

two or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to influence each other

Easier Definition: 2 or more people who interact with each other and interdependent

Why do people join social groups?

- Resources (evolutionary benefit)

- Self-esteem and the need for belongingness

- Helps resolve ambiguity (informational social influence)

- Helps define acceptable behavior (normative social influence)

Composition of Social Groups:

- Similar in age, sex, beliefs, opinions, status, etc.

- Groups tend to attract others with a certain set of characteristics

- Groups encourage similarity among members

Non-Social Groups/Minimal Groups

three or more people that interact minimally and are NOT interdependent

Social Roles

shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave in comparison to others

Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo et al., 1973)

Students randomly assigned to be guards or prisoners

Turned the Stanford psych department basement into a mock prison

Wanted to see if people would take up the negative aspects of their roles

Guards:

- Wore khaki uniforms

- Had whistle, nightstick, reflective sunglasses

Prisoners:

- Uniform with a number on it

Supposed to last 2 weeks; stopped after 6 weeks

- After 2 days, the prisoners had rebellion because of their poor treatment

- Guards became abusive and verbally harassed prisoners (humiliated them)

- Prisoners became passive, helpless, and withdrawn

Some prisoners became so anxious and depressed that they had to be released from the experiment early

We have an idea of what prison should be like and this was reflected in this experiment

This is played out in real life too

- Prison abuse in Abu Gharaib, 2004 (psychological beatings, sexual abuse, and psychological humiliation done by American soldiers towards Iraqi prisoners)

Their excuse was that they were under tremendous stress, little supervision, and had to set their own interrogation rules

Personal responsibility gets lost in social roles!!!

Group Cohesiveness/Entitativity

qualities of a group that bind members together and promote liking between them

Non-social/minimal groups → LOW cohesion

Social groups → HIGHER cohesion

Social Facilitation

when people are in the presence of others and their individual performance can be evaluated, the tendency to perform better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks

Easier Definition: the tendency to do BETTER on simple tasks, and WORSE on complex tasks, when in the presence of others, and our individual performance CAN be evaluated

The presence of other causes arousal

- Other people make us more alert (which might require our response)

- Evaluation apprehension (we feel like we are being evaluated) (Impression management and self-esteem concerns)

- The distracting nature of others causes arousal

Arousal enhances a dominant (well-learned) response

- If a task is easy, that dominant response will be enhanced with arousal (will do very well at a task)

- If a task is complex, arousal in a situation is overwhelming and causes impaired performance

Zajonc Cockroach Study (1969)

Cockroaches ran an easy maze

IV: other cockroaches were present or absent

DV: how long it took them to finish the maze

Wanted to measure if the presence of other cockroaches would change their maze time

They then made cockroaches run a hard maze

Results:

- Cockroaches ran faster when other roaches were watching in this EASY maze

- Cockroaches ran slower when other roaches were watching in this HARD maze

Social Loafing

when people are in the presence of others and their individual performance cannot be evaluated, the tendency to perform worse on simple or unimportant tasks but better on complex or important tasks

Easier Definition: the tendency to do worse on task when in the presence of others because we perceive that our individual performance cannot be evaluated

Examples:

- Group projects with one grade for everyone

- Yelling out the correct quiz answers in class

Happens because the presence of others leads to relaxation (as opposed to arousal)

- Less evaluation apprehension and impression management concerns

Worse on easy task when individual performance cannot be assessed

Deindividuation

the loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people can't be identified

Ex) people jumping into the field during a victory when there are a lot of people doing it

Happens because...

- Less accountability

- Increased obedience to group norms

- Reduction in sense of individual identity

Process Loss

any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem-solving

Prevents the group from reaching its full potential

Groups tend to focus on the info that they share/know but ignore facts known to only some members

People within groups sometimes self-censor

Groupthink

a kind of decision process in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner

Easier Definition: emphasis on group cooperation at the expense of critical thinking

Failure to evaluate alternative courses of action

Example of process loss!!

Most likely to occur when group is...

- Highly cohesive

- Isolated from contrary opinions

- Ruled by a directive who makes their wishes known

Prevented by...

- Having one person dissent (like in the Line Study)

- Appoint a devil's advocate

- Have an independent expert to evaluate decisions

Group Polarization

the tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of their members

The members who have the strongest opinions are typically the ones with the most confidence in their opinion

Group discussion strengthens the dominant positions held by individual group members

2 conditions present for this to happen:

- Initial inclination toward a given opinion

- Discussion of the topic

Transactive Memory

the combined memory of a group that is more efficient than the memory of the individual members

Great Person Theory

the idea that certain key personality traits make a person a good leader, regardless of the situation

Transactional Leaders

leaders who set clear, short-term goals and reward people who meet them

Transformational Leaders

leaders who inspire followers to focus on common, long-term goals

Contingency Theory of Leadership

the idea that the effectiveness of a leader depends both on how task or relationship-oriented the leader is and on the amount of control the leader has over the group

Task-Oriented Leaders

leaders who are concerned more with getting the job done than with workers' feelings and relationships

Relationship Oriented Leaders

leaders who are concerned more with workers' feelings and relationships

Social Dilemma

a conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual will, if chosen by most people, have harmful effects on everyone

Tit-for-Tat Strategy

a means of encouraging cooperation by at first acting cooperatively but then always responding the way your opponent did (cooperatively or competitively) on the previous trial

Negotiation

a form of communication between opposing sides in a conflict in which offers and counteroffers are made and a solution occurs only when both parties agree

Integrative Solution

a solution to a conflict whereby the parties make trade-offs on issues, with each side conceding the most on issues that are unimportant but important to the other side

Propinquity Effect

the more we see and interact with people (proximity!!), the more likely they are to become our friends

Propinquity → proximity

Your brain like things your comfortable

Propinquity Effect Study (Friendship at MIT Study)

1940s student housing

17 apt. buildings, student randomly assigned to residences

10 apartments in each building

Who becomes friends?

They asked the participants to name 3 bsf

- 41% listed people living 1 door down from them (proximity!!)

- 22% 2 doors down

- 10% opposite ends of hall

- ⅔ of one's friends were in the same building

Functional Distance

aspects of architectural design that make it more likely some people will encounter each other more often than others

Mere Exposure

the more you are exposed to something, the more you tend to like it

Broader (no just about people)

Propinquity Effect occurs due to mere exposure

Moreland and Beach (1992)

IV: female confederate attended a class

- Either 0, 5, 10, or 15 times

DV: How attractive is this woman 0-5?

Result: the more frequently she attended, the higher they rated her

0 → 3.6

5 → 3.9

10 → 4.2

15 → 4.4

Similarity

we like people who are like us

Familiarity = liking

To create friendships you need similarity

Newcomb Study

Assessed beliefs of incoming freshman and predicted who would become friends

- Used demographics, attitudes, and values

Results: students became friends with the people who were most similar to them

Matching Hypothesis

we become involved with people who are like us (in attractiveness)

We don't tend to go out of our league because of fear of rejection

We seek physical proximity to those similar in appearance

- Not even just level of attractiveness, but actual similarity in looks

Why does similarity increase attraction?

Similar others validate us (self-verification), different others contradict us

Similarity leads to proximity (e are more likely to run into people who are similar to us cuz they do the same things we do)

Interactions are more fluent with similar others

Similar others will like us back (we like when people like us)

Committed relationships → choose similar partners

Low level of commitment → choose dissimilar partner

Reciprocal Liking

we like people who like us

For initial attractions, reciprocal liking can overcome dissimilarity in attitudes and attentional biases to attractive faces

Reciprocal liking is so strong it can overcome lack of similarity

Hatfield et al., (1966)

752 freshman paired for blind date (dance) during orientation week

Couple spent a few hours dancing and chatting

What is the most predicted liking of one's partner?

- Physical attractiveness

Different for men vs. women?

- Both men and women use physical attractiveness (no difference)

Halo Effect

assume attractive people possess other desirable traits

Attractive men/women are judged to be happier, more intelligent, more popular, etc.

The "what is beautiful, is good" stereotype

More attractive individuals usually have a greater salary, more likely to get help in need, receive lesser sentences

- 86% longer sentences for unattractive defendants

Attractiveness and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

We have expectations that hotter people are better, so we behave accordingly to our beliefs, and so now we have confirmed that "what is beautiful is good"

Companionate Love

feelings of intimacy and affection for someone that are not accompanied by passion or physiological arousal

Nonsexual relationships

- Close friendships

Sexual relationships (they used to be sexual, now they're not)

- Psychological intimacy with less passion than once felt

Passionate Love

an intense longing for a person, accompanied by physiological arousal

When our love is reciprocated, we feel fulfillment and ecstasy

When our love is not reciprocated we feel sadness and despair

3 Dimensions of Love

Commitment

- Just commitment is empty love (cuz there's no intimacy or passion)

Intimacy

- Just intimacy is just liking (cuz we are not committed or passionate)

Passion (sexual)

- Just passion is infatuation (we are just hooking up)

Commitment + Intimacy =

Companionate love

Commitment + Pasison =

fatuous love (committed to the perosn you are hooking up w/)

Intimacy + Passion =

romantic love

Intimacy + Passion + Commitment =

consummate love

THIS IS WHAT U WANT

Attachment Style

expectations individuals develop about relationships due to their relationships with caregivers growing up

A schema about relationships

What you expect from your partners (how you expect them to behave in the context of your relationship)

How your parents were there for you in your childhood, is what you expect from partners

Attachment styles can change as you experience new events

Secure Attachement Style

trust, lack of concern with being abandoned; feel worthy and well liked

56% of people have this type of style

Most mature and longer lasting relationships (two secure people)

Highest level of relationship commitment

Highest level of relationship satisfaction

Avoidant Attachement Style

aloof and distance caregivers; infants suppress their need for intimacy

25% of people have this type of style

Avoidant adults have a difficult time trusting people

Last likely to enter relationships (and if they do, it is short-lived)

Most likely to report never being in love

Lowest level of relationship commitment

Anxious/Ambivalent Attachement Style

inconsistent caregivers; infants can't predict how caregivers will respond

19% of people have this type of style

These people want to be close to their partners but are anxious that their partner won't reciprocate

A lot of short-lived romantic relationships

Enter into romantic relationships the quickest (they want intimacy!!)

Most upset and angry when love is not reciprocated

Social Exchange Theory

posits that costs and rewards determine relationship satisfaction commitment

Rewards: feelings of love, sense of security, and physical attractiveness

Costs: might be emotional turmoil (drama), baggage, unhealthiness, unavailability

If at any given time, the rewards outway the costs, the relationship is worth staying in

Comparison Level

people's expectations about the level of rewards and costs they are likely to receive in a particular relationship

Easier Definiton: standard of comparison for current relationship

If you've always been in shitty relationships, you are comparing your new ones to them so you might think "wow this relationship is great" even if it's not because you're comparing it to something already really bad

Determines satisfaction!!

Comparison Level for Alternative

people's expectations about the level of rewards and costs they would receive in an alternative relationship

Investment Model

people's commitment to the relationship not only depends on their satisfaction with the relationship but also on how much they have invested in the relationship that would be lost by ending it

Adds to the social exchange theory saying that we need to also consider "quality of alternatives to relationships"

- If i'm in a meh relationship, but there are no other better options, i might stay with them

Adds by saying that we need to consider "level of investment in relationship"

- Time together, animals, property, a planned future

Causes cognitive dissonance → "this relationship sucks, i want to end it" buttttt "i've spent years of my life working on it"

Equity Theory

the idea that people are happiest with relationships in which the rewards and costs experienced by both partners are roughly equal

Easier Definition: satisfaction determined by ratio of rewards and costs for both partners

When both partners are happy (you're both equal)

Similar ration = more satisfaction

Inequity creates discomfort for both partners

Over-Benefited vs. Under-Benefited

Over-benefited (this person is benefiting a lot, while the other is not)

- Lots of rewards, few costs

- Devote little time or energy to relationship

Under-benefited (this person is the one giving a lot and not receiving)

- Few rewards, high costs

- Devote a lot of time and energy to the relationship

- Inequity is more important (or is felt more) by the person who is under-benefited

Exchange Relationships

relationships governed by the need for equity, involve strict reciprocity

Relationships tend to start like this

Communal Relationships

relationships in which people's primary concern is being responsive to the other person's needs

Evolutionary Psychology

explains social behavior in terms of genetic factors that evolved over time according to principles of natural selection

Evolutionary Approach to Mate Selection (women vs. men too)

men and women are attracted to different characteristic in each other because this maximises their chances of reproductive success

Women → reproductive success measured by successfully raising offspring to maturity

Men → reproductive success enhanced by having more offspring (men have an unlimited amount of potential offspring)

Minimum Obligatory Investment for Reproduction is...

Huge for women (pregnancy/birth is risky)

- so choosing a mate is a bigger deal

Small for men

Women should prefer mates that can provide resources

- Status symbols, musculature (shoulder/hip raito)

Men should prefer fertility in a mate, and more mates

- idea wasit/hip ratio (to prevent death during childbirth)

- breast size

Mate Preferences, Buss (1985)

Honesty, trustworthiness, and pleasant personality were consistent for both men and women

Men prefer younger mate while women do not

Problems with the Evolutionary Theory

Under-emphasis on social roles (social role theory)

Women should have multiple sex partners too (for more resources and genetic diversity)

Women have to get resources from men because men have had more access (men have controlled resources)

Men taught by society and media to value beautiful women (they have been conditioned)