umich Psych 280 Exam 2

descriptive norms

How others actually behave

Injunctive norms/prescriptive norms

The socially acceptable way to behave

Loose norms

Norms not strong; members tolerate more deviance

Tight norms

Strong norms of how people should behave

Informational social influence

Looking to others for the right answer. usually when we dont know the answer ourselves

Normative social influence

Conformity based on a desire to be accepted. usually when we dont know the answer ourselves

Cultural differences in conformity

people from interdependent cultures more likely to conform than people from independent cultures

Factors affecting conformity pressure

Group size, unanimity, cohesion, status, public response, tight culture, loose culture, public commitment

Ideomotor action

Just thinking about something is more likely to make us do an action

Social rules

expectations set by society; norms are learned social rules

Norm of reciprocity

If someone helps you, you help them

Door-in-the-face technique

Asking for a big request first, then a smaller one

That's-not-all technique

Presenting an initial offer and sweetening the deal

Foot-in-the-door technique

Asking for a small request first, then a big one

Negative state relief hypothesis

Motivation to help others to improve own mood

Reciprocity

Expectation that people will help those who have helped them

Commitment

once people commit to something, they are likely to follow through to remain consistent

Social proof

Tendency to follow the actions of others

Scarcity

things you do not or cannot have become more valuable

Liking

Compliance with requests from people we like; people more likely to comply with requests from people they like

Authority

Compliance with requests from an authority figure

Definition of Obedience

A change in behavior or beliefs as a result of the commands of others in authority; Following commands from an authority figure

Milgram's study

study with the shock machine, where participants were told they had to scok the confederate, and they did/conform

Factors that decrease obedience

Emotional closeness with victim, lack of institutional authority, presence of resistors

Factors that increase obedience

Perceived legitimacy, physical or psychological closeness, clear and direct commands

Reactance

a motive to protect or restore ones sense of freedom; arises when someone threatens our freedom of action

Dominant response

Socially acceptable response in a given situation

Zajonc's model of social facilitation

The presence of others can lead to facilitation or inhibition of performance; enhancing performance on simple or well-learned tasks; worsening performance on complex or new tasks

Mere presence of others effect

When there are other people around, you need to be on high alert, speeds up easy or well-versed tasks

Evaluation apprehension

Concern about being observed or judged by others

Distraction-conflict theory

conflict between paying attention to others and paying attention to the task

Social loafing

Exerting less effort when working collectively on a task (effort)

How to eliminate social loafing

Peer reviews, having a hard task so everyone needs to be present;

Make individuals accountable

Make task challenging and involving

Make the goal compelling/important to all

Make individuals feel their contribution is important

Provide consequences for success and failure.

Groupthink

When good groups make bad decisions for the sake of agreeability

Components/symptoms of groupthink

Illusion of invulnerability, collective rationalization, belief in inherent morality, stereotyped views of out-groups

How can we prevent groupthink?

Devil's advocate, bringing in outsiders

Self-censorship

Withholding information from a group to avoid negative consequences

Risky shift

Groups make riskier decisions than individuals

Group polarization

Attitudes of a group become more extreme

Illusion of unanimity

False belief that everyone agrees with majority decisions

Illusion of invulnerability

Exaggerated sense of confidence and optimism; Members of a group believe their group is invincible, immune to errors

Collective rationalization

Group members engage in a process of convincing themselves that their chosen course of action is the right one, despite potential evidence to the contrary.

Deindividuation

Losing individual identity and restraint in a group

Self-awareness theory

When people focus on themselves they are worried about how their actions line up with what they want their actions to be

Spotlight effect

Feeling that everyone is watching and paying attention

Leadership & Power in groups

Influencing behavior, cohesion, and effectiveness of a group

Determinants of leadership

Personality traits, intelligence, motivation, self-confidence

Approach/inhibition theory

High power individuals are inclined to go after their goals and make quick judgments (should show approach behavior); low power individuals are more likely to constrain their behavior and pay careful attention to others (should show inhibition behavior)

What is a group?

Three or more people with a similar interest

Minimal group paradigm

Even arbitrary and virtually meaningless distinctions between groups can trigger a tendency to favor one's own group at the expense of others

Psychological need to form a group

We are social creatures and feel the need to form groups

Outgroup homogeneity effect

Perceiving outgroup members as exactly the same; those who are outside of our groups, we all see as exactly the same

Social roles

Within a group, there are certain people that take on different roles (Leader, follower, etc.)

communal vs exchange relationships

Exchange relationships are more business-you keep track of how much each person gives and you are expected to put the same back in

Communal relationships you do not keep track of how much you give. When you give, you do so unconditionally and because you care about the other persons well being

Social exchange theory

Weighing costs and rewards in a relationship

Equity theory

We are driven by equality, and if we sense something is unequal we will try and remove it

Attachment theory

Early attachments impact emotional and social development

Secure attachment

Feeling secure when caregiver is present

Avoidant attachment

Avoiding or ignoring the caregiver

Anxious attachment

Being clingy and dependent on the caregiver

Need to belong (Harlow's Monkey)

Insight into the importance of social connections

Propinquity effect

The more we see/Interact with someone, the more likely we are to start a relationship with them

functional distance and psychological distance (relationships)

The physically closer we are to someone, the more likely we are to cross paths; perceived distance or separation between an individual and a particular object, event, person, or point in time.

Contrast effects

Perceiving others as less attractive when someone is very attractive

Mere exposure effect

The more you see a person, the more you like them

Matching hypothesis

Ending up in relationships with similar people

Maximization hypothesis

Individuals seek to maximize their outcomes in relationships (greatest potential for providing rewards and minimizing costs in a relationship)

Equalization hypothesis

Individuals are attracted to others who are similar in terms of their social desirability or overall attractiveness (similar to themselves in terms of attractiveness, social status)

Complementary hypothesis

Opposites attract in relationships (not true)

Halo effect

The idea that better looking people are better people. Is not true, but better looking people are usually better in social situations

Sex differences in attraction and mate selection

Guys-Have increasing levels of attractiveness desired as commitment goes up, except for one night stands

Women-Have increasing levels attraction wanted as commitment goes up

Reciprocal liking

Tendency for people to like others who express liking or positive regard for them

Sternberg's triangular theory

Intimacy

passion

commitment

*combine these to get different types of love

consummate love (intimacy, passion, commitment)

romantic love (intimacy and passion)

companionate love (intimacy and commitment)

Berscheid and Walster's two types of love

Passionate Love : The intense love that happens at first, longing for someone

Companionate love: When people get older, and they simply care for someone else greatly

How romantic relationships change over time

Transition from passionate to companionate love

Behavioral theory (of relationships)

Romantic relationships are formed and maintained through reinforcement and conditioning

*People are attracted to those who provide them with positive reinforcement, such as compliments, attention, and affection

Four horsemen of the apocalypse

Criticism, defensiveness, contempt (feeling that someone is below you), stonewalling (blocking someone out, not answering questions)

Prejudice

(attitudes) Negative attitude towards an individual simply because they are in a group

Discrimination

(behaviors)Negative attitudes towards a group or its members

Situational determinants of aggression

Heat, media, anonymity, family life, weapons effect

How to reduce anger

relaxation techniques, cognitive restricting, seek support

Realistic group conflict theory

If groups are fighting over resources, they are much more likely to dislike and stereotype eacother

Robbers cave experiment

This is where two groups of nice, normal boys were taken to camps and they were split into two groups. They did group bonding, and came up with a flag. Then these two groups had to do competitions with eachother, and it got nasty pretty quick. There was lots of hatred and stereotyping of other groups

Jigsaw classroom

This is where you put kids of all different races and ethnicities together, and make them work together by giving each one of them a little bit of the information needed to solve a problem

Social roles

Different roles taken on within a group

cooperation

voluntary and intentional interaction between individuals or groups to achieve common goals.

Kin selection

An evolutionary strategy that favors the reproductive success of one's genetic relatives, even at the potential cost of ones life

Reciprocal altruism

Helping others with expectation of help in return

Negative state relief hypothesis

We feel bad when we see someone in need, so we help them to make ourselves feel better

Empathy-altruism hypothesis

Identifying with someone in need and intending to help

Social reward hypothesis

individuals engage in altruistic behaviors because it brings social rewards such as praise & gratitude

Bystander effect

Less likely to help when others are present

5-stage model of bystander intervention

1) Noticing there may be someone who needs help

2) Interpreting that help is needed

3) Taking responsibility for helping

4) Deciding the best way to help

5.) actually helping

Distraction

Not noticing someone in need due to being in a hurry

Diffusion of responsibility

Responsibility spreads out among many people in a group

Pluralistic ignorance

You believe what is going on is wrong, but nobody else appears to think that and you don't want to be singled out, so you don't help

Feelings of incompetence

Not possessing the skills to help

Costs exceeding rewards

Potential harm outweighs the benefits of helping

Increasing helping

1) Listen to a lecture about helping

2) Attract attention, let others know you are in need

3) Identify even as an emergency-people will know something is really wrong

4)Delegate Responsibility so the responsibility is not diffused anymore

Effect of wealth on helping

complex; some studies suggest individuals with higher socioeconomic status less likely to engage in direct helping behaviors, they may be more likely to contribute to charity or help indirectly