Studied by 0 people
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.
Note 
Flashcard (64)