last midterm 1

social brain hypothesis

humans have a large prefrontal cortex to cope with dynamic and complex social groups, understand social rules, and avoid offending others/violating group norms

ingroups

groups to which particular people belong

social brain hypothesis

humans have a large prefrontal cortex to cope with dynamic and complex social groups, understand social rules, and avoid offending others/violating group norms

ingroups

groups to which particular people belong

outgroups

groups to which particular people don’t belong

reciprocity

people treat others as others treat them

transivity

people generally share their friends opinions of other people

outgroup homogeneity effect

tendency to view outgroup members as less varied than ingroup members

social identity theory

ingroups consist of individuals who perceive themselves to be members of the same social category and experience pride through their group membership

ingroup favoritism

tendency for people to evaluate favorably and privilege members of ingroup more than members of outgroup

minimal group paradigm

dividing people into random 2 groups, still ingroup value each other more- even prevent outgroup from getting $

medial prefrontal cortex

mid region of prefrontal cortex- important for thinking about ingroup and outgroup

risky-shift effect

groups often make riskier decisions than individuals do

group polarization

process by which initial attitudes of groups become more extreme over time- increases with debate/discussion

groupthink

tendency of group to make a bad decision as a result of preserving the group and maintaining its cohesiveness, especially likely when a group is under intense pressure, taking external threats, and is biased in a particular direction- extreme of group polarization

1st social psych experiment

1897 norman triplett showed that bicyclists pedal faster when they ride with other people than when they ride alone

social facilitation

presence of others generally enhances performance

zajonc’s model of social facilitation

suggests that the presence of others can enhance or hinder performance on simple or complex tasks. Essentially, the presence of others creates arousal, which can improve performance on well-learned, dominant tasks, but worsen performance on complex, novel tasks. 

social loafing

tendency for people to work less hard in a group than when working alone

deindividuation

reduced attention to personal standards- tend to do things that wouldn’t do if they were alone (ex. rioting, the wave)

conformity

altering of one’s behaviors and opinions to match other people’s expectations- not same as compliance or obedience

normative influence

to be liked, tendency for people to conform in order to fit in with the group- Asch’s study of line lengths

informational influence

to be right- tendency for people to conform when they assume the behavior of others represents the correct way to respond

• Sherif’s autokinetic effect with darkness and light appearing to move

social norms

expected standards of conduct that influence behavior

obedience

following orders of person of authority

public compliance

conforming without believing what we’re doing/saying (normative)

private acceptance

genuine belief that group is right (informational)

influences on normative social influence

group size, group unanimity, group cohesiveness, how important is group to individual?

consequences of not conforming

1. try to convince to go with group

2. ostracize

aggression

any behavior that involves the intention to harm another

factors that influence aggression

feeling socially rejected, heat, testosterone, serotonin (increases amygdala response to threat)

culture of honor

belief system in which men learn it is important to protect their reputation through physical aggression

prosocial behavior

actions that benefit others, such as doing favors or helping

kin selection

altruism/self-sacrificial behavior that benefits genetic fitness of relatives

inclusive fitness

explanation by Hamilton- people are altruistic toward those with whom they share genes

confederate

an individual who is part of the research team but pretends to be a participant

bystander intervention effect

failure to offer help by those who observe someone in need when other people are present

4 major reasons of bystander effect

1. diffusion of responsibility- bystanders expect other bystanders to help

2. fear of looking stupid

3. want to remain anonymous

4. evaluation of costs vs. benefits

attitude accessibility

ease or difficulty that a person has in retrieving an attitude from memory

explicit attitudes

attitudes that a person can report

implicit attitudes

attitudes that influence a person’s feelings and behavior at an unconscious level

post-decisional dissonance

focusing on the positive traits of the thing you picked and negative traits of the thing you didn’t pick

persuasion

active and conscious effort to change an attitude through the transmission of a message

factors that affect persuasiveness

source (who delivers message), content (what message says), receiver (who processes the message)

elaboration likelihood model

persuasive messages lead to attitude changes in either two ways: central route or peripheral route

central route

when people are motivated and able to process information

peripheral route

when people are either not motivated to process info or are unable to process, leads to more impulsive actions

compliance

tendency to do agree to do things requested by others

foot in the door technique

This strategy involves getting a person to agree to a small request first, which increases the likelihood that they will agree to a larger, related request later

door in the face technique

start big, smaller seems more reasonable

low balling

when you agree to buy a product for a certain price, you are likely to comply with a request to pay more for a product- “but wait! there’s more…”

thin slices of behavior

people can make accurate judgements based on a few seconds of observation

attributions

people’s explanations of people’s behavior that refer to their internal characteristics, such as ability, traits, moods, or efforts

situational attributions

explanation of people’s behavior that refer to external events, such as the weather, luck, accidents

fundamental attribution error

overemphasize personality traits and underestimate situational factors (ex. typecasting)

illusory correlations

people believe false relationships because they only notice information that confirms their stereotype

subtyping

when someone does not fit a stereotype, they put that person in a special category rather than alter stereotype

shooter bias effect

people unconsciously think black people are more likely to have a weapon than white people

stereotype threat

fear or concern about confirming negative stereotypes related to one’s own group, which in turn impairs performance on a task

how to combat stereotype threat

reframing, self-labeling (taking ownership of title), and perspective taking

neophobia

people fear anything novel

matching principle

the most successful romantic couples also tend to be the most physically similar

“what is beautiful is good” stereotype

the belief that attractive people can do no wrong

passionate love

a state of intense longing and desire

companionate love

strong commitment based on friendship, trust, respect, and intimacy

attachment theory

one’s attachment style in adulthood is related to early childhood experiences, especially parenting

capitalization

couples deliver criticism lightly, with compassion when things go wrong and revel in each other’s success when things go right

attributional style

how one partner explains the other’s behavior

milgram’s experiment of obedience

psychiatrists thought few people would go to end - 1/100,000

—> 65% actually went to end of meter

dark side of groups

obedience and deindividuation

prevention of dark side of groups

leaders should elicit opinions from others first, encourage alternate ideas, appoint devil’s advocate, evaluate pros/cons

ambady, gottman, kraus

dating vs. friends, quality of marital relationships, social class

actor-observer discrepancy

when there is negative outcome, blame the situation if it is ourselves (external), blame the person if it is someone else (internal)

positive outcome,

credit ourselves (internal) and discount others (external)

Schachter’s ‘Dr, Zilstein’ Experiment

misery loves miserable company- group a is told electric shocks would hurt, group b told shocks would be light and tickly

causes of attraction

1. proximity- we tend to like people physically near us

2. familiarity- mere exposure effect- increased familiarity usually increases liking

3. similarity- birds of a feather flock together- the more similar a person’s attitudes are to our own, the more we like the person

4. reciprocity

5. arousal- when aroused physiologically, we are more likely top be attracted

6. reactance (romeo and juliet effect)- being told that someone does not like the person we like just makes our attraction stronger

7. physical attractiveness- halo effect, perpetuated by children’s stories

potential reasoning for small waist and big hips attraction

• women with small waists have smaller babies (more likely to be successfully born)

• breast milk- omega 3 fatty acid- associated with fat used to store in hips

  • omega 6 is associated with belly fat

conditions for group formation

reciprocity and transivity

schadenfreude

pleasure derived by someone from another person’s misfortune

parochial empathy

we don’t feel quite as bad for people in outgroups when something bad happens to them

message from separating yourself from the pack podcast

people in general feel more empathy by deeply visualizing the other person’s experience