social psych 208 part 2

Three types of social influence

Conformity, compliance, obedience

Conformity

Tendency to change our perceptions, opinions ur behavior in ways that are normal within a group

Compliance

Cialdinis 6 principles

Obedience

Pilgrims study of obeying

Social influence

Influence others have on our beliefs attitudes and behavier

Norms

Learned social rules that Indicate what is typical in a group

Descriptive norms

How people actually behave

Injunctive norms

How people should or should not behave

Two types of social influence

Informational social Influence and normative social Influence

Informational social influence

Confirm to norm provides what is right

Normative social influence

Conform to norms to avoid others disapproval to be accepted

The auto kinetic effective study

Goes into informational social influence

Auto Kinetic affective study design

participants in dark room with bright lights, participants give estimate on how far it moves out loud

Asch line study

one participant and seven confederates say out loud which line of 3 matches the given line

Factors affecting conformity

group size, unianimity, cohesion, culture, individual differences

group size

the bigger the group, the more confirmative someone becomes

unanimity

one dissenter can decrease conformity

cohesion

member of group tend to conform more

culture

if collectivist more conformity, if independent cultures less conformity

individual differences

high self efficacy is less, low self efficacy is more

compliance

changing perceptions, opinions, behavior based on direct compliance

Arizona state park study

using signs based on positive/negative focus with injunctive/descriptive norms and seeing which is most effective

Hotel towel study

normalizing saving hotel towels using signs to see if it will help with influence

Household energy study (shultz)

20 san marco households with visible energy meters, everybody recieves average of others and households will change energy use based on average to comply with established norm

Cialdini’s principles of persuasion

reciprocity, commitment, social proof, liking, authority, scarcity

Reciprocity

repay others for what they give us, gives sense of obligation

greeting cards study

cialdini sent 578 christmas cards to strangers and 20% sent a card back

Return label study

cialdini sent letters asking for donations, some got no gift and some did. Gift people more likely to donate

Door in the face

Starts with extreme request that is rejected, and then retreats to smaller request which is granted

Self defense from reciprocity

Notice the principles in play and call person out

Commitment and consistency

taking stand and natural tendancy to stay consistent with stand

why it works

consistency is valued in society, consistent due to cognitive mises and avoid feelings of cognitive dissonance

foot in the door, freedom and fraser…

asked for large billboard in lawn, some had no small request and others had small request

self defense from commitment

aware of exploitation techniques, don’t need to behave consistant with commitment

Social proof

view certain behavior as correct and others engaging in it

why does social proof work?

exploits heuristic processing, fewer mistakes when paying attention to social evidence

self defense from social proof

be sensitive to fake social proof and recognise actions of others should not form sole decision

Liking

prefer to comply with request to people like us

Self defense from liking

be suspicious if you like someone you haven’t known for long, mentally seperate requester from request

Authority/obedience

more likely to comply when person making request has authority, social norm to obey authority figure

Self defense from authority

is authority figure knowledgable, how truthful is expert, does request conflict with values?

Scarcity

limit number of products and times available, more value on difficult to gain items

self defense from scarcity

be aware of rush of arousal, access situation more clearly

Obedience

changing perceptions, opinions, or behavior by submitting to demands of more powerful person

obidience study milgram

researcher gives word pair memorizations to confederate behind screen and teacher gives amount of shocks as order from researcher

why is obedience so powerful?

obligation to authority, weren’t directly responsible in study

Groups

collection of individuals who are interdependent to some degree

minimal group formation

virtually meaningless distinctions between groups can trigger tendency to favor ones own group

Why do groups form?

need for belonging, social roles, self esteem

What is the effect of the presence of others on performance (Norman and Triplett 1897)

Children asked to reel, in groups of alone or with others, performed fast when with others

Social facilitation effect

perform better when with others

Dashiell (1930) social inhibition effect

social presence of others harms performance

Zajonc’s mere presence theory (1965)

presence of others produces arousal, easy well learned tasks have dominant response more correct rather than difficult learned tasks

Evaluation apprehension concern

concern for how others view us

jogger study

males jogging in forest and will change habits if they notice females in the area

Distraction conflict hypothesis

conflict between paying attention to others and paying attention to tasks

Risky shift

tendency for consensus decisions made by groups to be riskier than decisions prior to group discussions

group polarization

group decisions to be more extreme than those made by individuals

why does group polarization happen?

persuasion, social comparison, active participation, diffusion of responsibility

Group think (irving janis)

loss of group judgment and issues not recognized due to social pressure to reach consensus

factors that contribute to groupthink

cohesion, isolation, biased leadership, decisional stress

how to prevent groupthink

assign devils advocate, subdivide group to create opportunities, welcome criticism, call second meeting, build diverse perspectives, remove leader from deliberation stage

dissociation model of prejudice

stereotypes are auto triggered and we control whether or not we accepy the stereotype

Outgroup Homogenity effect

bias toward thinking out group members are more similar to each other than in groups

perceptual narrowing

in homogenous racial contexts kids less able to differentiate out group (race) faces

Mirror effect

people more likely to correctly ID own race face and falsely ID other race face

Realistic group conflict

actual or preferred competition for resources/competing goal causing conflict and causing stereotypeing

Social identity theory

People derive self esteem by looking to groups to which they belong

Implicit bias

Subtle and unconscious bias where people hold associations about social categories that contradict explicit self report

Shooter bias

mistakes more common with whites and false alarms and more common with blacks

How can bias be reduced?

superordinate goals, intergroup contact, knowledge, motivation to override

superordinate goals of bias reduction

shared common goal for groups to complete, putting aside bias

sherif robbers cave experiment

white boys taken to camp and split into 2 teams to compete. Worked together on common task

minimal group paragiam

minimal conditions needed to produce a certain response

realistic group conflict theory

real or perceived competition for resources and out group hostility

intergroup contact in reduction of bias

contact with those of other groups helps to reduce prejudice and bias

Alports theory of intergroup contact

Optimal contact conditions for reducing intergroup prejudice. Common goals, coorperative environment, equal status and institutional support

dissociation model of prejudice

control whether or not we accept the stereotype

Knowledge in the reduction of bias

importance of understanding and reducing prejudice and bias

Marley hypothesis

lacking knowledge of past racism in US is predictor of whites denial of extent where racism continues to be a problem

Where do relationships come from?

Proximity, familiairty, similarity, reciprocity, attractiveness and arousal

Propinquity effect

the more we see and interact, the more we start a relationship

Proximity in relationships

functional distance matters in relationship, familiarity

Reciprocity in relationships

people tend to like others who feel the same way toward us as we do toward them.

Attractiveness and arousal

physical attractiveness being considered attractive?

The halo effect

attractive people have positive qualities