Studied by 2 people
Passionate love
Attraction
Aroused state of intense positive absorption in another, usually present at the beginning of a romantic relationship.
Ex: Bridge experiment
Compassionate love
The deep affectionate attachment we feel for those with whom our life is intertwined.
Ex: trust, calmness, bonding, released oxytocin.
Norms
Conformity and obedience
Rules about how group members should act
GRIT (Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-Reduction)
Altruism, conflict, and peacemaking
Strategy designed to decrease international tensions: 1. recognition of mutual interests and its intent to reduce tensions 2. Initiates 1 or more small conciliatory (“we invite to hear you”) acts without weakening one’s retaliatory capacity, opens for reciprocity of the other party. If enemy responds with hostility, one reciprocates in kind.
Ex: Ceasefire in Gaza situation
Conformity
Conformity and obedience
Adjusting out behaviors or attributed to mold to a group standard
Social cognition
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
Refers to a complex set of mental abilities underlying social stimulus perception, processing, interpretation, and response.
Attitude
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
A set of beliefs and feelings. About people, events, places. Is evaluative feelings towards such things, can be positive or negative.
Attribution theory
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
We explain someone’s behavior by crediting either the situation or the person’s disposition.
Dispositional attributions
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
A type of attribution in which you assign responsibility for an event or action to the person involved.
Ex: A friend got a perfect score on a math test, you think this is because he is good at math
Person stable: You infer that the friend has always been a math whiz
Person unstable: You think that the friend has studied a lot for this particular test
situational attributions
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
A type of attribution in which you assign responsibility for an event or action to the circumstances of the situation.
ex: Your friend aced the math test, you attribute his success to situation factors such as an easy test
Situation-stable: You believed your friend’s math teacher is an easy teacher
situation-unstable: You think your friend’s math teacher is a tough teacher who happened to give and easy test.
Fundamental attribution error (FAE)
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
When looking at the behavior of others, people tend to overestimate the importance of dispositional factors and underestimate the role of situational factors.
Ex: You meet Claude at a party, he is unresponsive and keeps gazing in other directions. He then makes an excuse to leave. Most would just think he is rude because of his disposition, without considering situational factors. Claude had just broken up with his partner.
Actor-observer bias
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
The tendency to attribute the behavior of others to internal causes, while attributing out own behavior to external causes. In other words, actors explain their won behavior differently than how an observer would explain the same behavior.
Ex: Actor does a bad thing…
actor: “I had to do this because of my situation”
Observer: basing behavior or characters disposition
Self-serving bias
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
Tendency to take more credit for good outcomes rather than bad ones.
Collectivist and individualistic cultures
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
Collectivist cultures (ex: Japan), a persons link to groups is stressed. Less likely to be affected by FAE, because more attuned to ways different situations influence their behavior
Individualistic cultures (ex: U.S.") that stress uniqueness are more likely to be affected by FAE
Mere exposure effect
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
Idea that people tend to like things or people they are familiar with/exposed to more often rather than things they have only been exposed to a few times.
Ex: When at the store picking out chips, you are more likely to choose the chips from the commercial on TV you keep seeing than a brand you just found.
Harold Kelley’s theory of attributions
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
Consistency: How similarly an individual acts in the same situation over time (Ex: How does Charley usually do on his math tests?). Useful when determining whether to make an unstable or stable attribution.
Distinctiveness: How similar the situation is to other situations (Ex: Does Charly do well on all tests? Has he evidenced an aptitude for math in other ways?
Consensus: How others in the same situation have responded (ex: how many people got perfect scores). Important when determining whether to make a personal or situational attributional .
Central route of persuasion
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
A method of convincing others to take action or make a decision based on facts and evidence of the merits of the outcome.
Peripheral route of persuasion
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
Persuasion which does not rely on the intrinsic merits of the argument. It is concerned with cues around trustworthiness, emotions, and group identity rather than facts and logic.
False consensus effect
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
Tendency to assume that one’s own opinions, beliefs, attributes, or behaviors are more widely shared than is actually the case.
Ex: “i like horror movies, then most people like horror movies as well”
Just-world bias
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
Belief that bad things happen to bad people.
Ex: believing that others are unemployed because they are lazy
Compliance strategies
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
Strategies used to persuade individuals to comply with a request or change their behavior
Foot-in-the-door
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
If you get people to agree to a smaller request, then they will be more likely to agree to follow-up request that’s larger
Ex: You ask a friend for $5, they are more likely to give you $15 if you ask later
Door-in-the-face
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
after people refuse a large request, they will look more favorable upon follow-up request that in comparison, seems more reasonable.
Ex: Asking friend for $100 they say no, then ask for $20 .
norms of reciprocity
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
Our expectation that people will help us if we’ve helped them
Ex: Tipping at restaurants
Roles
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
Social position people have (ex: teacher) and the behavior associated with that position
Cognitive dissonace
Attributions, attitudes, and actions
The idea is that people are motivated to have consistent attitudes and behaviors. When they do not, they experience unpleasant mental tension or dissonance. Change in attitude happens without our conscious awareness.
Social contagion
Conformity and obedience
The spread of behaviors, attitudes, and affect through crowds and other types of social aggregates from one member to another.
Normative social influence
Conformity and obedience
Where a person conforms in order to be accepted and belong to a group. They do this because it is socially rewarding and/or to avoid social rejection.
Informational social influence
Conformity and obedience
Where a person conforms to gain knowledge, or because they believe that someone else is ‘right’
Chameleon effect
Conformity and obedience
An unconscious mimicry of postures, mannerisms, facial expressions, and other behaviors of one’s interaction partners, such that one’s behavior passively and unintentionally changes to match that of others in one’s current social environment.
Social facilitation
Group behavior
People perform tasks better in front of an audience
Social impairment
Group behavior
If the task being observed is difficult, watched by others can hurt the performance
Ex: playing a piano in front of an audience
Social loafing
Group behavior
Individuals don’t put in so much effort when acting as part of a group as they do when alone. When acting as part of a group, individual gets the same rewards of group effect without putting in too much effort.
Deindividuation
Group behavior
The loss of self-awareness and self-restraint that occurs in group situation that foster arousal or anonymity
Ex: High schoolers at a football game, more likely to yell profanities in crowd bc they are anonymous.
Group polarization
Group behavior
Groups tend to make decisions that are more extreme compared to the original thoughts of individual group members. the change is influenced hen individuals are exposed to new persuasive arguments of other members.
Groupthink
Group behavior
Irving Janis, tendency for some groups to make bad decisions. Group members suppress their reservations about the ideas supported by the group. Tense unanimity is encouraged, and flaws in group’s decisions is overlooked.
Ingroup
Group behavior
Social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member.
Outgroup
Group behavior
Consists of anyone who does not belong to your group
Prejudice: implicit vs explicit
Prejudice and discrimination
Prejudice: An unjustifiable, negative attitude towards a group and its members. Involves negative stereotyped beliefs, and a predisposition to discriminate.
Ex: Mexicans are criminals
Overt (Explicit): prejudice is on the radar of our awareness.
Implicit: Unaware of how our attitudes are influencing our behavior.
Sterotypes
Prejudice and discrimination
Ideas of different group members, and expectations that may influence the way we interact with them. Can be positive or negative.
ex: Mexicans are illegal
Discrimination
Prejudice and discrimination
Action that acts on one’s prejudices. An unjust, negative behavior towards a group.
Ex: refusing to hire a Mexican because of prejudice that they are dangerous
Ingroup bias
Prejudice and discrimination
Tendency to favor one’s own group over other groups
scapegoat theory
Prejudice and discrimination
The tendency to blame someone else for one’s own problems is a process that often results in feelings of prejudice towards the person or group that one is blaming.
Ex: when the members of a sports team blame a player who made a mistake for the loss of a match, though other aspects of play also affected the outcome.
other-race effect
Prejudice and discrimination
Well-replicated finding that humans are better at remembering faces from their own racial group, relative to other g
Frustration aggression principle
Aggression
Frustration often leads to aggressive behavior
hostile aggression
Aggression
Has no clear purpose
Ex: Bobby is upset, he kicks Carol
instrumental aggression
Aggression
Aggressive act intended to secure a particular end
Ex: Bobby wants a doll Carol has so he kicks her and grabs the doll
social script
Aggression
Cultural modeled guide for how to act in situations. Can be aquired, for example, through media and parents.
self-disclosure
Attraction
When one share piece of personal information with another person. Close friendships and lovers are built through this process.
Altruism
Altruism. conflict, and peacemaking
An unselfish regard for the well being of others.
Bystander effect (AKA bystander apathy)
Altruism. conflict, and peacemaking
The larger the number of people who witness an emergency situation, the less likely anyone is to interfere. Because of…
diffusion of responsibility: the larger the group of people who witness a problem, the less responsible any individual feels to help people. People tend to assume that someone else will take action so they need not do so.
Pluralistic ignorance: People seem to decide what constitutes appropriate behavior in a situation by looking at others. Ex: no one else in the class is worried by black smoke coming through a vent, individual concludes taking no action is the proper thing to do.
Study: Darley & Latane’s bystander apathy research
pluralistic ignorance
Pluralistic ignorance: People seem to decide what constitutes appropriate behavior in a situation by looking at others. Ex: no one else in the class is worried by black smoke coming through a vent, individual concludes taking no action is the proper thing to do.
Social exchange theory
Altruism. conflict, and peacemaking
Social behavior is an exchange process, the aim of maximizing benefits and minimizing costs.
Reciprocity norm
Altruism. conflict, and peacemaking
Expectation that people will help, not hurt, those who have helped them.
social-responsibility norm
Altruism. conflict, and peacemaking
The expectation that people will help those needing their help
Ex: volunteering
Social trap
Altruism. conflict, and peacemaking
A situation in which conflicting parties, each pursuing their self-interest rather than the good of the group, become caught in mutually destructive behavior.
Ex: “The fuel I burn in my one car doesn’t noticeably affect greenhouse gasses”. Collective result: climate change
Mirror-image perception
Altruism. conflict, and peacemaking
Mutual views are often held by conflicting people as when each side sees itself as ethical and peaceful and views the other side as evil and aggressive. Self-fulfilling prophecy at its worst.
Self-fufilling prophecy
Altruism. conflict, and peacemaking
An expectation or belief that can influence your behaviors, thus causing the belief to come true.
KEY STUDY: Rosenthal & Jacobson’s 1968 “Pygmalion in the classroom”
Superordinate goals
Altruism. conflict, and peacemaking
A goal that can be attained only if members of two or more groups work together by pooling their skills, efforts, and resources.
KEY STUDY: Sherif’s 1954 Robber Cave Study
LaPierre (1934) Asian patrons at a restaurant
KEY STUDIES
In 1934, Richard LaPiere conducted an early study that Illustrated this difference. In the u.s. in the 1930s, prejudice and discrimination against Asians was pervasive. He traveled throughout the West Coast visiting many hotels and restaurants with an Asian couple to see how they would be treated. On only one occasion were they treated poorly due to their race. A short time later, he contacted all of these establishments they had visited and asked about their attitudes towards Asian patrons. Over 90% of the respondents said they would not serve Asians. This finding illustrates that attitudes do not perfectly predict behaviors.
Fetsinger & Carlsmith (1950s) cognitive dissonance studies
KEY STUDIES
Leon Festinger and James Carlsmith conducted the classic experiment about cognitive dissonance in the late 1950s. Their participants performed a boring task and were asked to tell the next subject that they had enjoyed the task. In one condition, subjects were paid $1 to lie, and in the other condition they were paid $20. Afterwards the participants' attitudes toward the task were measured. According to festinger and carlsmith, having already said that the boring task was interesting, the subjects were experiencing dissonance. However those subjects we paid $20 experienced relatively little dissonance; they had lied because they had been paid $20. On the other hand, those subjects who were paid only $1 lacked sufficient external motivation to lie. Therefore to reduce the dissonance, they changed their attitudes and said that they actually did enjoy the activity.
Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968) Pygmalion in the classroom
KEY STUDIES
A classic study involving self-fulfilling prophecies was Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson's "Pygmalion in the Classroom" experiment. They administered a test to elementary school children that supposedly would identify those children who were on the verge of significant academic growth. In reality, the test was a standard IQ test. These researchers then randomly selected a group of children from the population who took the test, and they informed their teachers that these students were right on the verge of intellectual progress. At the end of the year, the researchers returned to take another measure of the students' IQs and found the scores of the identified children have increased more than the scores of their classmates. In some way, the teacher's expectations that these students would Bloom intellectually over the year actually caused the students to outperform their peers
Sherif (1966) Robber Cave study
KEY STUDIES
Muzafer Sherif's Camp study ( aka the robbers cave study) illustrates how easily out-group bias can be created and how superordinate goals can be used to unite formerly antagonistic groups. He conducted a series of studies at a summer camp. He first divided the campers into two groups and arranged for them to compete in a series of activities. This competition was sufficient to create negative feelings between the groups. Once such prejudice had been established, Sherif staged several Camp emergencies that required the groups to cooperate. The superordinate goal of solving the crises effectively improved relations between the groups.
Darley & Latane (1968) bystander effect studies
KEY STUDIES
The bystander effect occurs when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation. Social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley popularized the concept following the infamous 1964 Kitty Genovese murder in New York City.
Asch (1951) conformity study
KEY STUDIES
Solomon Asch conducted one of the most interesting conformity experiments. He brought participants into a room of colleagues and asked them to make a series of simple perceptual judgments. He showed the participants three vertical lines of varying sizes and asked them to indicate which one was the same length as a different target line. All members of the group gave their answers aloud, and the participant was always the last person to speak. All the trials had a clear, correct answer. However, on some of them, all the Confederates gave the same, obviously incorrect judgment.
Asch found that in approximately one-third of the cases where the colleagues gave incorrect answers, the participants conformed. Furthermore, approximately 70% of the participants conformed on at least one of the trials. In general, studies have suggested that Conformity is most likely to occur when a group opinion is unanimous.
Although it would seem that the larger the group, the greater the Conformity that would be expressed, Studies have shown that groups larger than 3 ( in addition to the participant) do not significantly increase the tendency to conform.
Milgram (1961) obedience study
KEY STUDIES
Obedience Studies have focused on participants' willingness to do what another asked them to do.
Stanley Milgram conducted the classic obedience study. Participants were told that they were taking part in a study about teaching and learning, and they were assigned to play the part of teacher. The learner was a colleague. As the teacher, it was participants' job to give the Learner an electric shock for every incorrect response. In reality, no shocks were delivered; the colleagues pretended to be shocked. As the level of the shocks increased, the Confederate screamed in pain, said he suffered from a heart condition, and eventually fell silent. Milgram was interested in how far participants would go before refusing to deliver any more shocks.
The experimenter watched the participant and, if questioned, gave only a few stock answers, such as " please continue".
Contrary to the predictions of psychologists who Milgram polled prior to the experiment, over 60% of the participants obeyed the experimenter and delivered all the possible shocks.
Milgram replicated his experiments with a number of interesting twists. He found that he could decrease the participants compliance by bringing them into closer contact with the colleagues. Participants who could see the Learners gave fewer shocks than participants who could only hear the learner. The lowest shock rates of all were administered by participants who had to force the learner's hand onto the shock plate. However, even in the last condition, approximately 30% delivered all of the shocks. When the experimenter left in the middle of the experiment and was replaced by an assistant, obedience also decreased. Finally, when other colleagues were present in the room and they objected to the shocks, the percentage of participants who quit in the middle of the experiment skyrocketed
Milgram's experiments have been severely criticized on ethical grounds.
Zimbardo (1971) prison roles experiment
KEY STUDIES
One famous experiment that showed not only how such conditions can cause people to deindividuate but also the effect of roles and the situation in general, is Philip Zimbardo's Prison Experiment. Zimbardo assigned a group of Stanford students to play the role of prison guard or prisoner. All were dressed in uniforms and prisoners were assigned numbers. The prisoners were locked up in the basement of the psychology building, and the guards were put in charge of their treatment. The students took to their assigned roles perhaps too well, and the experiment had to be ended early because of the cruel treatment that the guards were inflicting on the prisoners.
Note 
Flashcard (24)