Social Psych Exam 2

Ostracism

Excluding one or more individuals from a group by reducing or eliminating contact with the person usually by ignoring, shunning, or explicitly banishing them

Social Comparison Theory

people join with others to evaluate the accuracy of their personal beliefs and attitudes

Downward Social Comparison

To maintain a sense of self-worth, people seek out and compare themselves to the less fortunate

Social Identity Theory

how we categorize our identity based on the group's identity

Collective Self-Esteem

self-worth is evaluated based on the group

Sociometer Model

self-esteem based in feeling of inclusion/exclusion in social groups

social loafing

the reduction of individual's effort exerted when people work in groups compared to when they work alone

How to reduce social loafing

Identify each group member's contribution

Increase importance of the task

Increase level of individual commitment

Shared mental model

Knowledge, expectations, conceptualizations, and other cognitive representations that members of a group have in common pertaining to the group and its members, tasks, procedures, and resources.

Group cohesion

the sense of solidarity or loyalty that individuals feel toward a group to which they belong

Group development

forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning

Norming Phase

standards for behavior and roles develop that regulate behavior

Performing phase

the group has reached a point where it can work as a unit to achieve desired goals

Common Knowledge Effect

the tendency for groups to spend more time discussing information that the members know (shared information) and less time examining information that only a few members know

Deindividuation

tendency for an individual within a group to let go of self-awareness and restraint and do what the group is doing

Groupthink

A set of negative group-level processes, including illusions of invulnerability, self-censorship, and pressures to conform, that occur when highly cohesive groups seek concurrence when making a decision.

Four group-level factors that combine to cause groupthink

Cohesion, Isolation, Biased leadership, Decisional stress

How to minimize groupthink

leaders should remain impartial, group should seek opinions of people outside the group, vote using secret ballot, make all group members responsible for the decision of the group

dorsal anterior cingulate cortex

a subregion of prefrontal cortex that may play a role in the motivational value of pain. Causes pain when one is being shunned.

group polarization

the enhancement of a group's prevailing inclinations through discussion within the group

Traditional family

two or more people who are related by blood, marriage, and - occasionally - adoption

Nuclear family

only parents and children

Two-parent family

family with two parents, often a mother and father

Modern family

the common thread among all of the modern families listed is caring, commitment and close emotional ties. Some examples include blended, childfree, and single parent families.

Family of Orientation

the family that a person is born into is their

Family of Procreation

the family a person starts when they leave their family of orientation to start their own family

Joint Family

three or more generations of blood relatives in the same house or compound. Also known as multigenerational households

Family Systems Theory

Each person in the family has a role to play and these roles come with certain expectations

Attachment Style

a style of relating to others that develops early in life, based on the emotional bond one forms with one's parents or primary caregiver

Secure

parents responsive to infant needs

Anxious

avoidant, parents not attentive

Anxious-resistant

inconsistent parenting

Disorganized

tumultuous childhood, erratic relationship with caregiver

Secure attachment style

High self-esteem, high interpersonal trust, most successful style, forms long-lasting and satisfying relationships

Dismissive Attachment Style (Anxious-Avoidant)

High in self-esteem, low in interpersonal trust, expects the worst out of other people, fearful of getting close

Preoccupied attachment style (anxious-resistant)

Low in self-esteem, high in interpersonal trust self-destructive, craves closeness, expects to be rejected

fearful avoidant attachment (disorganized)

Low self-esteem, Low interpersonal trust, unable to form close relationships, relationships are not fulfilling

Coherence

adults gain insight about their childhood experiences and realizes that it does not mean that they are unworthy of love or that others are untrustworthy

Marriage Market

choose the best option

Homogamy

marrying someone similar

Cohabition

romantic partners live together but are not married

Authoritative

high control, high warmth

Authoritarian

high control, low warmth

Permissive

low control, high warmth

Uninvolved

low control, low warmth

Empty nest

sadness some parents experience when children leave

Boomerage generation

children, often between the age of 25 and 34, who come back to live with their parents

Sandwich generation

group of people taking care of both their children and their parents

Self-evaluation

people seek information about themselves in order to assess how their beliefs fit the social norms and to assess the level of their abilities

Leon Festinger

social cognition, cognitive dissonance; Study Basics: Studied and demonstrated cognitive dissonance. Behind social comparison theory

Social comparison

the process by which people understand their own ability or condition by mentally comparing themselves to others

Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model (SEM)

our response to social comparison will be based upon whatever can help to maintain, reinforce, or repair our self-esteem and self-concept.

If we engage in downward comparison, we are likely to place even more importance on that trait or ability in our self-concept, because it will bolster our self-esteem further.

When an upward comparison threatens our self-esteem, we are likely either to minimize that aspect of our self-concept or we will distance ourselves from the more successful comparator

more social comparison

closer you are to comparators, more likely to compare

N-effect

The finding that increasing the number of competitors generally decreases one's motivation to compete.

Frog pond effect

most people prefer to be a big frog in a small pond than a small frog in a bigger pond.Prefer less competitive environment for more downward comparisons

Dunning-Kruger Effect

The tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their own ability and the tendency for experts to underestimate their own ability. Opposite of "Imposter Syndrome"

Behavioral consequences of downward comparisons

more motivated to continue engaging in behaviors relevant to the dimension of comparison

Consequences of downward comparisons

Self-Enhancement Effect: boost to self-esteem or self-concept-Behavioral Consequences: motivated, cope with challenges, scorn, exaggerated sense of pride, anger towards a more successful comparator, threatens self-esteem, can cause envy.

Upward comparison

when we compare ourselves to people who are doing better than us on some trait or ability

Upward Comparison Effects

Hope, inspiration, Dissatisfaction, Envy

Downward Comparison effects

Gratitude, Scorn

Social Roles and Social Norms

Both are patterns of behaviors that are accepted as normal, and to which an individual is expected to conform in a particular group or culture

Injunctive norms

behaviors considered appropriate or inappropriate based on one's culture

Descriptive norms

belief about what most people typically do. How people typically behave in a given group or situation.

Social Influence

The process in which other people affect an individual's thoughts and actions

People often conform to perceived norms for two main reasons

Informational Influence: This occurs when individuals conform because they believe others possess more accurate information or know something they don't. For instance, in unfamiliar situations, people may rely on the group's behavior to guide their own actions, assuming the group is better informed.

Normative Influence: This is driven by the desire to fit in and be accepted by others. People conform to avoid disapproval, rejection, or social isolation. In essence, they align their behavior with the group to maintain harmony and avoid standing out.

Normative Influence

People go along with the crowd because they are concerned about what others think of them

Solomon Asch (1956)

experiment with lengths of lines and lots of confederates incorrectly answering. The more confederates, the stronger their influence

Informational Influence

people go along with the crowd because the actions of others often provide information as to what is socially appropriate

Conformity

a type of social influence in which people change their behavior to stay in line with the norm. The tendency to act and think like the people around us

Why do people conform

people reflexively tend to not want to look out of step or become the target of criticism

Fitting in with others also brings rewards such as camaraderie and compliments

Why do people conform?

Ambiguous situations

Need info right away

When immediate action is necessary

When we are afraid and need to ease fears

Leads to private conformity (people believe the group is right)

Obedience

An individual's compliance when given an order or command from someone in position of authority

Criticisms of Milgram's Study

generalizable? pervasive climate of prejudice, cannot be recreated in a laboratory.

today we are more aware of the dangers of blind obedience.

Due to ethical concerns, it would not be conducted today

Strategies for Resisting Obedience

Changing authority:

Remove the appearance of authority

Milgram showed that the perception of authority is enough to elicit obedience

Changing proximity:

Physical or psychological closeness can impact our willingness to be obedient

If others refuse to obey, it will be more likely more will follow

Robert Cialdini's 6 Principles of Persuasion

1. Reciprocation

2. Consistency

3. Social Proof

4. Liking

5. Authority

6. Scarcity

triad of persuasion

likability, authority, honesty

Milgram Experiment

A series of psychological experiments which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.

Persuasion

the process by which a message induces change in beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors

Persuasion was the most studied area of social psychology after

WWII

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

proposes there are two different routes to persuasion: Central Route & Peripheral Route

Central Route

cognitive route of persuasion based on the content and deeper aspects of an argument.

Peripheral Route

cognitive route of persuasion that involves more superficial or secondary characteristics of an argument or an orator. Has little to do with logic. It requires a target who isn't thinking carefully about what you have to say.

incolation

building up resistance to unwanted persuasion

stinging

immediately drawing an individual's attention to the way they have been persuaded

Reciprocity

They give you something (a gift, free sample, or favor) to create a sense of obligation, making you more likely to return the favor by agreeing to their request

Scarcity

They emphasize that an opportunity or item is limited or in short supply, creating urgency and making you more likely to act quickly without thinking it through.

Authority

They use titles, uniforms, or endorsements to appear credible or trustworthy, making you more likely to follow their suggestions.

Social Proof

They show you that others are doing or buying something (e.g., "best-seller" or "everyone loves this") to encourage you to conform to the majority.

Commitment and Consistency

They get you to agree to something small initially, and then ask for a larger commitment later, playing on your desire to remain consistent with your past behavior.

Emotional Appeal

They use stories, imagery, or language designed to tug at your emotions (e.g., fear, sympathy, or excitement) to bypass rational thinking.

Framing

They present information in a way that influences your perception, such as emphasizing benefits while downplaying drawbacks

Anchoring

They introduce a high reference point (e.g., a high initial price) so that subsequent offers seem more reasonable in comparison.

Who can persuade by appearing knowledgeable and credible?

Experts and Authority Figures

What is an example of individuals who can influence trust due to their perceived authority?

Doctors, scientists, or celebrities endorsing products

How can peers and social groups persuade individuals?

Through peer pressure or shared values

What is social proof in the context of persuasion?

Testimonials or reviews

How does media and advertising persuade audiences?

Through repeated exposure, emotional storytelling, or visually appealing content

What type of organizations carry inherent credibility that makes their messaging persuasive?

Institutions like schools, governments, or companies

What is the 'Appearance of Expertise' in manipulating trustworthiness?

Individuals or brands may use titles, jargon, or associations with reputable institutions to seem knowledgeable, even when they're not.