Studied by 1 person
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
Attribution:
The process for determining the causes of other people’s behavior. We want to tell ourselves a story. Homeless people are the most attributed.
Dispositional vs. Situational Attribution:
Dispositional: Internal causes; traits, intentions, motives. We look at people as a person (good or bad).
Situational: We look at the scenario around the person, external causes, luck, factors beyond control, and environmental factors.
Explanatory Style:
Optimistic or pessimistic attributions.
Question: Are people cheerful or gloomy? This determines your attributions.
Fundamental Attribution Error (Errors in Attribution):
The tendency for observers, when analyzing others’ behavior, to underestimate the impact of the situation and to overestimate the impact of personal disposition.
We can’t immediately see others’ background causes
Less common in collectivist cultures- Collectivist Cultures do what’s best for the community and family, not the individual. (East Asia)
Examples: Someone thinks their coworker is unreliable for being late, but they actually got stuck in traffic. Or when someone assumes the waitress is lazy, but they were just super busy.
Self Serving Bias:
Tendency to attribute our own successes to dispositional causes and our failures to situational causes to a greater extent than is actually justified.
Protects and enhances our self-esteem.
Ex: We take the credit: “I am smart, so I got a 100.”
Cognitive Dissonance:
Dissonance: Unpleasant state
Conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions
Dissonance is not desired; so we seek to reduce the dissonance
Leon Festinger, 1957
Solving Dissonance:
Cognitive Dissonance is when your actions go against your beliefs. To solve it, people change their beliefs to match their actions.
Less Leads to More Effect:
The weaker the reasons for engaging in an opposing behavior the stronger the pressure for changing attitudes (and vice versa)
The person who has less of a reason for doing something has more of a reason to change and justify their beliefs.
EX: If you are getting paid to wash Mr. Schultz’s car so he can go on a date, your motivation is clear and you don’t need to justify it. However, if you aren’t getting paid you change your beliefs and say you are doing it because he needs a social life.
Group Think:
The desire for harmony overrides critical thinking and alternative solutions to a problem (Irving Janis)
Ex: Bay of Pigs invasion
Group Polarization:
The beliefs and attitudes we bring to a group/ organization become more extreme as we discuss them with like-minded people.
They are very extreme and oppose different ideas than theirs.
Ex: Political rallies, hate group meetings
Deindividuation:
People lose their identities, awareness, and moral responsibilities in groups.
Ex: Riots, Gang Violence.
Social Facilitation vs. Social Loafing:
Social Facilitation: Individuals who perform better in pressurized group situations vs. alone.
EX: Elite athletes.
Social Loafing: Individuals who do less when others are around.
EX: Tug of War Scenario and Group Presentations.
Social Loafing:
Individuals who do less when others are around.
EX: Tug of War Scenario and Group Presentations.
Social Trap:
A situation where short term gains are repeatedly put ahead of long term dangers.
Examples: Deforestation, tragedy of the commons, and social security.
Altruism:
Selflessness and concern for the welfare of others.
Operational Definition:
The definition must be a number.
EBQ:
Have outside information for both sources about factors that influence conformity.
Elaboration Likelihood Model:
-Petty and Cacioppo
-There are 2 routes of persuasion: Central Route and Peripheral Route.
Central Route Persuasion (Appeal to Logic):
-Focusing on facts, arguments, and logic to arrive at a decision to change behavior.
Example: Law cases, Environmental Movement, “You will get a 5% better warranty with us than the other company.”
Peripheral Route Persuasion (Appeal to emotion):
-Relies on environmental factors other than the argument/ facts to change behavior.
-Ex: Celebrity endorsements, flashy designs, sexual appeal, humor, distraction.
Ingratiation:
-Using flattery, name dropping, self-promotion, or self deprecation to convince another to change behavior.
-Ex: Making fun of yourself and making you appear humble.
Ingratiation Example:
Self deprecation
Foot in the Door Technique:
-Starting with a small request and then gradually working up to a larger request.
Ex: Companies use this when they sell features on a new car. If someone pays for one small thing, they are willing to pay for the other features.
Door in the Face Technique:
-Starting with a big request and then gradually working down to a smaller request; This technique is used to make the offer appear very reasonable.
-Ex: Used car salesman and discounts in stores.
Factors contributing to attraction:
Absence makes the heart grow fonder= False
Opposites attract= False
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Attraction consists of:
Proximity
Similarity
Physical attraction (Half and Half)
Halo Effect:
Being surrounded by something or something desirable adds to your own desirability.
Ex: Since he is so handsome, he must also be rich. It’s making assumptions about someone as a whole because of a single good trait.
Mere-Exposure Effect:
The more frequently we are exposed to various stimuli the more we tend to like that stimuli.
Sternberg’s Triangle of Love Theory:
Just World Bias:
The tendency for people to believe the world is fair and that people therefore get what they deserve. If you have good things happen to you, you are a good person, and vice versa.
Example: The Jury blamed a rape victim and said that the woman was wearing provocative clothing and asked for it.
Stanford Prison Experiment:
The students who became prisoners did what they were supposed to do in their role. The guards acted like they were actually guards. The experiment was supposed to last 2 weeks, but it ended up being 6 days.
Milgram’s Obedience Shock Experiment:
The shock experiment suggested that people are capable of hurting people and even killing them if an authoritative figure tells them to. Milgram was dressed in a lab coat and called himself a doctor, which led the man to give the person inside the cell maximum electric shocks despite not wanting to actually hurt someone.
Asch’s Conformity Experiment:
The Solomon Asch line experiment demonstrated that people conformed to the wrong answer. They said B was the same size as the line on the left.
Factors that influence conformity:
Authority figures, fear, uncertainty.
