Social Psychology Terms

Fundamental Attribution Error

Fundamental Attribution Error

When you know the situation, dismiss the situation, and make an internal/dispositional judgement.

False Consensus Effect

Others think people will do what they do, even if that is not the case.

Self-Serving Bias

If we do something well, we attribute it to positive self-traits, if we do bad, we generally blame it on external factors.

Actor/Observer Bias

A type of defensive attribution to protect our self-esteems.

Internal/External Attribution

Basing a persons actions based on their internal beliefs, basing a persons actions on environmental circumstances, not their internal beliefs.

Defensive Attribtuion

The train of thought/bias of believing someone deserves what happened to them based off the situation.

Social Comparison Theory

Perceiving someone else’s experiences and comparing them to our own.

Deindividuation

A way to make people feel less individual/human.

Diffusion of Responsibility

The effect where individuals in a group believe they will not have to act and/or do less when there are others present.

Cognitive Dissonance/Resolution of Dissonance

When our actions do not match our beliefs and what we do makes us uncomfortable, the subsequent acts to fix that uncomfortable feeling and reaffirm ourselves.

Conformity

The idea of knowing a group consensus is wrong, yet going along to maintain group peace.

Social Facilitation

If we are good at an action, people should perform better in a crowd, when we are bad at something, we will likely perform worse in a crowd.

Social Loafing

When in a group, people are most likely going to put in less effort than when individual.

Group Polarization

If we speak with people who only agree with us, we become more extreme in our beliefs.

Groupthink

The effect where people go along with the decision making in a group often due to discomfort in going against a group.

Other-Race Effect

Greater recognition of faces of our own race.

Stereotype Threat

When a person feels at risk of conforming to negative stereotypes about their race or gender.

Frustration-Aggression Principle

When a goal is unmet, a person can become frustrated, which can lead to aggression/aggressive behaviors.

Bystander Effect

Do not get involved in a situation, unless time permits or someone else acts, as to not stand out from the group norm.

Reciprocity Norm

The expectation that we should return help, not harm, to those who have helped us.

Outgroup/Ingroup/Homogeneity Bias

Preference for ones own group/more favorable to them, Tendency to dislike members of a group we don’t identify with.

Altruism

The unselfish concern for the welfare of others.

Social Traps

Situations where individuals harm collective wellbeing by prioritizing their personal interests over the common good.

Mirror-Image Perceptions

The tendency of conflicting parties to view each other in similar negative ways, often demonizing one another.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

If we believe something, we begin acting to fulfill/get near that prophecy.

Realistic Conflict Theory

When parties are forced to fight over limited resources, they begin becoming/forming prejudices and discriminating/discrimination against the other.

Implicit vs. Explicit Bias

Prejudice that turns into an action/actions unconsciously. (Implicit)

Explicit: A prejudice that turns into a conscious action.

Unconscious Patronization

The act of judging one on something based on their name.

Informational vs. Normative Social Influence

Information is provided to us which shapes our actions/decision making.

The norms of our society shaping our action/decision making.

Halo Effect

The effect which people judge who we perceive as attractive and attribute that to being better at everything.

Ross False-Consensus Theory

…they aimed to investigate the phenomenon of false consensus bias, which is the tendency for individuals to overestimate the degree to which others share their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Here's a brief description of the experiment, how it worked, and what it showed:

1. Experimental Design:

   • Participants: Undergraduate college students at Stanford University.

   • Scenario: Participants were asked to take on the role of a student in a discussion about a controversial topic - a hypothetical quiz bowl.

   • Beliefs: They were asked to express their opinions on the topic and estimate the percentage of other participants who would share their views.

2. Expressing Opinions:

   • Participants were divided into three groups, each with a different position on the quiz bowl issue: pro-quiz bowl, anti-quiz bowl, and neutral.

   • They were asked to write essays explaining their positions and to predict the positions of other participants.

3. Results:

   • False Consensus Bias: The experiment revealed that participants consistently overestimated the number of people who shared their viewpoints. Those in the pro-quiz bowl group believed that more people were pro-quiz bowl than there actually were, and the same pattern emerged in the anti-quiz bowl and neutral groups.

   • No differentiation: Participants didn't adequately differentiate their own beliefs from the beliefs of others. They assumed that others were more like them than they actually were.

4. Implications:

   • The experiment demonstrated the existence of false consensus bias, which is a cognitive bias that can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts when people assume that their views are more widely held than they are.

   • False consensus bias can influence decision-making, social interactions, and even contribute to polarization by making individuals less likely to consider alternative perspectives.

Milgram Obedience Theory

…conducted a groundbreaking experiment to explore obedience to authority figures and the ethical implications of such obedience. Here's a concise description of the … Experiment, how it worked, and what it showed:

1. Experimental Design:

   • Participants: The study involved volunteers, who believed they were participating in a learning experiment.

   • Roles: Participants were assigned the role of "teacher" and were asked to administer electric shocks to a "learner" (an actor) whenever the learner answered questions incorrectly.

2. Procedure:

   • Participants were told that the purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of punishment on learning.

   • The participants were instructed to gradually increase the voltage of the electric shocks for each incorrect answer, with a range from 15 volts (mild shock) to 450 volts (extremely dangerous).

   • The learner, who was not actually receiving electric shocks, pretended to be in pain and distress, even screaming at higher voltage levels.

3. Results:

   • Obedience to Authority: Milgram found that a surprisingly high percentage of participants (around 65%) were willing to administer shocks up to the maximum voltage, despite the apparent harm and distress they believed they were causing to the learner.

   • Ethical Concerns: The experiment raised significant ethical concerns due to the psychological and emotional distress experienced by participants, though they were unaware that the shocks were fake.

   • Implications: Milgram's study highlighted the powerful influence of authority figures on people's behavior and demonstrated the potential for ordinary individuals to commit harmful acts when instructed by an authority figure.

4. Ethical Implications:

   • Milgram's experiment led to changes in ethical guidelines for conducting psychological research, emphasizing the need to protect participants from psychological harm.

   • It also sparked important discussions about the balance between scientific research and ethical considerations, especially when studying controversial and potentially harmful behaviors.

Zimbardo Prison Experiment

conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power and authority within a simulated prison environment. Here's a brief description of the Stanford Prison Experiment, how it worked, and what it showed:

1. Experimental Design:

   • Participants: College students were recruited and randomly assigned to play the roles of either "guards" or "prisoners" in a simulated prison environment set up in the basement of Stanford University.

   • Duration: The experiment was originally planned to last two weeks but was terminated after only six days due to the severe psychological effects observed.

2. Simulation of a Prison:

   • The "guards" were given uniforms, sunglasses, and authority over the "prisoners," while the "prisoners" were stripped of their personal belongings, given numbered uniforms, and subjected to strict rules and dehumanizing conditions.

   • … played the role of the prison superintendent, further reinforcing the power dynamic.

3. Results:

   • Rapid Transformation: The study showed that participants in both roles quickly adopted their assigned roles, with "guards" displaying authoritarian and abusive behavior, while "prisoners" exhibited signs of distress and passive acceptance.

   • Psychological Harm: Many participants experienced severe psychological distress, including anxiety, depression, and emotional breakdowns. Some "guards" engaged in abusive behavior such as humiliation and harassment.

   • Early Termination: Due to the alarming psychological and ethical consequences observed, the experiment was terminated after only six days, instead of the planned two weeks.

4. Ethical Concerns:

   • The Stanford Prison Experiment raised significant ethical concerns about the well-being of participants. The participants' psychological and emotional distress led to a reevaluation of ethical standards in psychological research.

   • Informed Consent: Participants were not fully informed of the potential risks and psychological harm they might encounter, which is considered a violation of ethical guidelines in research.

Clark and Asch Experiment

…conducted a series of studies collectively known as the Doll Test to examine the impact of racial segregation and discrimination on the self-esteem and self-perception of African American children. Here's a brief description of the Clark Doll Test, how it worked, and what it showed:

1. Experimental Design:

   • Participants: African American children, typically between the ages of 3 to 7, were the primary participants in the study.

   • Materials: The … presented children with two identical dolls, one white and one black, and asked them a series of questions and tasks about the dolls.

2. Procedure:

   • Doll Preference: Children were asked which doll they preferred or liked the most.

   • Doll Attributes: They were asked questions about the dolls' positive and negative attributes (e.g., "Which doll is the nice doll?").

   • Self-Identification: Children were asked to identify which doll looked more like them or which doll they would like to be.

3. Results:

   • Racial Bias: The Doll Test revealed that a significant number of African American children expressed a preference for the white doll and attributed positive characteristics to it, while associating negative traits with the black doll.

   • Negative Self-Perception: Many children also identified the white doll as more similar to themselves or the one they would prefer to be, indicating a negative self-perception based on their racial identity.

   • Impact: The study provided empirical evidence of the damaging effects of racial segregation and discrimination on the self-esteem and self-concept of African American children.

4. Implications:

   • The Doll Test was instrumental in the legal case of Brown v. Board of Education, which ultimately led to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to desegregate American schools. The …' research demonstrated the harmful psychological impact of racial segregation and contributed to the civil rights movement's momentum.