ap psychology: social psychology unit

foot-in-the-door

agree to small request → more likely to agree to larger request

door-in-the-face

refuse large request → more likely to agree to smaller request

low ball technique

small price offered → small “unexpected” add-on → agrees to higher price

AND

small price offered → accepted → commitment to purchase → agrees to higher price

attitude change depends on

• amount of thought applied

• interest in message

central route

means to persuade → facts and figures

attitude change → slow and steady

duration → long-lasting and resistant to change

peripheral route

means to persuade → emotion

attitude change → quick and easy

duration → temporary and not durable

Schachter’s 2 Factor Theory of Emotion

physiological arousal → cognitive appraisal → labeling of emotion

Festinger + Carlsmith (1959) Study

boring task → “tell them it was fun”

groups:

promised $1 → fun! (high dissonance change of opinion)

promised $20 → not fun! (low dissonance easy to rationalize)

cognitive dissonance

belief → dissonance (discomfort/tension) → strategy to lessen dissonance → changing your belief is the easiest

↕

conflicting behavior/surroundings → dissonance (discomfort/tension) → strategy to lessen dissonance → rationalize away dissonance (not easy to do)

Asch Study

had one participant in a room full of research confederates (researches who pose as participants) all agree on the wrong answer which made the participant second guess his choice → conformity was very strong

conformity

the tendency of people to go along with the views or actions of others

• in the asch study, the conformity was very strong

informational social influence

acceptance of facts by others

normative social influence

→ acceptance by others

→ fit in with the group

→ not be criticized or ostracized by others

Stanley Milgram Study

see how far a participant is willing to go when they know they’re hurting the person on the other side with the shocks

Zimbardo Prison Experiment

zimbardo made a fake prision where participants had roles as either guards or prisoners in order to see prison had an effect on mental health

experiment went south, many prisoners had mental breakdowns, guards were abusing them, zimbardo took his role as warden took seriously. in the end the experiment ended after 6 days when zimbardo’s girlfriend asked what the heck was going on.

power of the situation

role ———→ reality

deindividuation

• to become less of an individual

• lessened sense of self that happens often

google says: a state where a person feels anonymous and doesn’t think they’ll face consequences for their actions

how deindividuation can happen

→ a person assumes role (uniform)

→ a person shields identity

→ a person is part of a group

the effects of deindividuation

→ DECREASED responsibility

→ DECREASED sense of identity

→ chance of deviant behavior

deindividuation in milgram’s study

• not seeing learner

• not knowing learner

→ higher obedience rates

deindividuation in zimbardo’s study

• wearing sunglasses & uniform

• wearing prison smock & chain

• prisoners having ID number

deindividuation in diener & colleagues study

• candy stealing

→ higher when in groups and when not giving name

reciprocity norms

person A does a favor for person B

person B feels pressure to return the favor to person A

Kunz & Woolcott (1976)

holiday cards were given to 578 strangers and 117 cards were sent back

attribution

• what caused something to happen?

• they can be unfair or fair

• MATTER OF PERCEPTION

dispositional attribution

• refers to characteristics about you, whether good or bad

  → internal

  → traits

  → ability

  → genetics

  → within one’s control

situational attribution

→ external

→ luck

→ outside forces

→uncontrollable forces

→ not one’s doing

fundamental attribution error

when an observer overestimates disposition and underestimates situation

Jones and Harris (1967)

people were given a pro-castro essay and they were told the essay was the author’s real opinion and when they were asked what they think the author really feels about Castro, their votes were high. then they were told that the author was forced to write the essay and again they were asked what they think the author really feels about Castro, their votes were still high.

people were given a anti-castro essay and they were told the essay was the author’s real opinion and when they were asked what they think the author really feels about Castro, their votes were low. then they were told that the author was forced to write the essay and again they were asked what they think the author really feels about Castro, their votes were still low.

just world hypothesis

• people get what they deserve (“karma”)

• “what i think it should be…”

• “how i view the world…”

• “how the world ought to be…”

• good people

  → popularity

  → winning a championship

  → winning lottery

  → promotion

  → good health

• bad people

  → victim of crime

  → getting laid off

  → poor health

  → bankruptcy

  → no friends

halo effect

something good about a person → everything must be good about that person

pitchfork effect

something bad about a person → everything must be bad about that person

Thomdike (1920) study about the Halo Effect

demonstrated that teachers' perceptions of students' physical attractiveness influenced their evaluations of students' academic abilities.

self-serving bias

when something good happens, you attribute it to your own abilities, but when something bad happens, you blame external factors.

actor-observer bias

the tendency to attribute one's own actions to external factors while attributing others' actions to their character.

group affilation

the tendency for individuals to align themselves with a particular group, influencing their behavior and opinions.

what is a person’s ingroup?

it can be because of race, religion, gender, and etc.

it can be strong or weak, implicit or explicit, can be temporary or permanent grouping, and can be subjective for each person

group bias

the tendency to favor one's own group over others, often leading to prejudice or discrimination.

sherif et al. (1954)

conducted the Robbers Cave experiment, demonstrating the development of in-group and out-group dynamics among boys.

scapegoating

the practice of blaming an individual or group for problems or misfortunes, often to divert attention from the real issues.

what made the ingroup and the outgroup work together during the robber’s cove study?

• competition

• scarce resources

• fight for survival

stereotype

a widely held but oversimplified belief about a particular group of people.

prejudice

an unjustified or incorrect attitude towards an individual based solely on their membership in a social group.

discrimination

the unfair treatment of individuals based on their membership in a particular group, often resulting from prejudice.

prejudice turns into action

other race effect

the tendency to recognize faces of one's own race more accurately than faces of other races, often leading to misidentification.

explicit bias

the attitudes or beliefs that one endorses at a conscious level, which can influence behavior and decision-making.

implicit bias

the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions unconsciously, often leading to unintentional discrimination.

contact hypothesis

the theory that increased exposure to members of different groups can reduce prejudice and improve intergroup relations.

superordinate goals

shared goals that require cooperation between groups, promoting unity and reducing conflict.

1864 maryland referendium

a vote held in Maryland to decide on the state's position regarding the abolition of slavery during the Civil War.

social facilitation effect

when a task is already easy or you’re already skilled at it, your performance will enhance when people are watching

social inhibition effect

when a task is difficult or you’re not that skilled at it, your performance will worsen when people are watching

diffusion of responsibility

when more people come onto a project, the less responsible you feel for the tasks that should be done

social loafing effect

as the size of the group goes up, sense of responsibility goes down

Lantané and Rodin (1969)

70% of people helped the person who was screaming for help when they were alone

only 40% helped the person who was screaming for help when they were with a group of people

group polarization

like-minded individuals become more extreme after discussion → they become more polarized → which leads to group polarization

after a discussion/interaction with like-minded people,

more extremes occur!

groupthink

it involves a group of people and they have a high pressure decision to make and you want to figure a solution so bad that you lose your ability to clearly think carefully about the solution you’re deciding on

stemberg’s love triangle

• Passion → physical attraction

• Intimacy → being close and connected

• Commitment → decision to maintain relationships

  Passion + Intimacy + Commitment = Consummate Love → very rare

successful long-term relationships - passion decreases → commitment and intimacy make up for it

hatfield’s theory of love

as the years go by, the level of intensity fir passionate love decreases but companionate (compassionate love) increases

parental investment hypothesis

what does a person seek in a partner?

the goal from an evolutionary stand point is to keep my genes in the gene pool

men think → “who can best bear my children?”

women think → “who can best protect and provide for my children?”

mere exposure effect

what face do you prefer?

the more we see something/someone, the more we like it/them

Zajonc (1968)

participants were asked to study mandarin characters, they didn’t know anything about mandarin beforehand. they were shown some characters at a higher frequency than others. then they were asked “how pleasant are these characters?” the characters that were shown to them more often, they were more pleasant with but the characters that weren’t shown to them that often, they were less pleasant with

proximity hypothesis

how close you are to someone increases the likelihood of interaction, connection and the development of relationships.

matching hypothesis

when looking for attractiveness, we try to find a partner who is on the same level of attractiveness as us. we can’t go below or above.

social exchange theory

the “weight” of difference between the benefits and the costs

if the costs are more than the benefits then…

terminate the relationship

if the benefits are more than the costs then…

maintain the relationship

mirror image perceptions

when two opposing outgroups think of the other group in a negative manner but think of themself as good

self-fulfilling prophecy

you predict an outcome

you act in a way that causes the outcome

the prediction is proven true (by self means!)

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1966)

told teachers one group of students were “above average” and told that the other group of students were “average” kids. the kids who were seen as “above average” in the eyes of the teachers were treated differently and at the end of the year had a higher IQ

relative deprivation

“i might not have a lot” when you compare to someone else but when you compare it to someone else, you might be doing better than that someone

chameleon effect

named after the animal because of how we might change our behavior to mimic the behavior of someone else. we might “mirror” them

Chartrand and Bargh (1999)

two participants are having a conversation but one of the participants is a confederate. and they either rub their face or shakes their leg. the participant was secretly being observed in order to see if the participant would rub their face or shake their leg just as the confederate was doing. the participant did end up following what the confederate was doing

social trap

when one or more people try to meet their short-term individual gain, they end up causing long-term mutual destruction.