Exam 3 social psychology

Proximity

People tend to like each other more when the social situation brings them into repeated contact (can be online or in person)

Familiarity

Increases our liking of thing or person (more proximal, more familiar, more like)

More exposure

Tendency to prefer stimuli that we have seen frequently (eg. Ads)

Moreland and Beach study with More exposure

IV: Confederates attending 0, 5, 10, or 15 classes

DV: How much participants liked the confederates

Results: The more attendance the more the participants liked the person

Similarity

More likely to develop close relationships with those that share values and beliefs (easier and reinforcing)

Social relationships are good for us emotionally and physically especially for

Marginalized groups

Best friend buffer effect

When put under stressful situation and friend is present there was less cortisol for stress released

When friend wasn’t present there was more cortisol

Social well-being from social online games increased

Social skill development, social bonds, including for older (55+) people, and self-esteem

Social well-being from social online games decreased

Depression and loneliness

Intimate relationships

Based on caring, warmth, acceptance, and support

Reciprocal self-disclosure

Tendency to communicate frequently, without fear of reprisal and in an accepting manner

Self-disclosure is positively linked to

Affection

Exchange norms

Relationships in which each of the partners keep track of his or her contributions to the partnership

Communal norms

Relationship in which partners suspend their need for equity and exchange, giving support to the partner in order to meet their needs, and without consideration of the costs to themselves (should have balance between partners)

Interdependence

People in a relationship rely on each other to meet their needs and achieve their goals, resulting in a complex relationship that includes a deep understanding of the other individual

Codependence

Unhealthy attachment to and reliance on others (marked by dysfunction)

Triangular model of love (Sterburg, 1989)

There are 3 types of love each made up of different combinations of cognitive and affective components

Intimacy

Caring, closeness, and emotional support

Passion

Physiological and emotional arousal

Commitment

Decision to commit with willingness to work on the relationship

Romantic love

Passion + Intimacy

Compassionate love

Intimacy + Commitment

Fatuous Love

Passion + Commitment

Across Different Cultures with love

Patterns of passion, commitment, and intimacy were different across relationship length

Bowlby (1940)

Infants experience distress when separated from their caregivers (monkey cloth vs. Monkey wire with food)

Strange situation test

Mom + baby play, mom leaves, mom comes back, how does baby react?

Attachment style

How people relate to others in close relationships (readily stable over time, but not fixed)

Anxious

Tendency to worry about the loss of partner’s love

Avoidant

Tendency to feel uncomfortable being emotionally close to one’s partner

Childhood secure

Caregiver is perceived as safe, available, and responsive

Childhood Anxious

Child is overly dependent, continually seeking affection, anxious about whether caregiver will reciprocate

Childhood avoidant

Unable to connect with caregiver

Adulthood secure

Create stable, healthy, relationships

Adulthood Anxious

Less warm towards partners, more angry, difficulty expressing emotions

Adulthood Avoidant

Trouble creating close relationships

Intergroup relations

Interactions between individuals from two or more groups on the basis of their group membership

Social categorization

Cognitive process by which we place individuals into social groups based on social knowledge (schema)

Social categorization results in

Treating the people as members of a social group rather than an individual

Outgroup homogeneity occurs because

We learn less about outgroup members

Social categorization distorts perceptions

Exaggerates differences between social groups and similarities within social groups

Outgroup homogeneity

Views members of outgroup as more similar to each other than members of ingroups

Cognitive categorization

Apply schemas to outgroup members making outgroup individuals appear more similar to each other

Social categorization+Outgroup homogeneity+Self-Enhancement

Intergroup bias

Intergroup bias

Unfair affective behavioral and cognitive responses to ingroups and outgroups

Stereotypes

Generalized beliefs; things we “know” about our group and other groups

Prejudice

Attitudes about a group based on group membership (affectively)

Discrimination

Differential treatment of individuals because of their group membership

Group attributions

People make attributions that benefit their groups

Ultimate attribution error

Tendency to perceive outgroups in an extremely and unrealistic negative manner

Why are stereotypes easy to create, but hard to remove?

Assimilation, confirmation bias, 1st impressions, ingrained in culture, self-fulfilling

Less competence and high warmth

Pity

Less competence and low warmth

Disgust

High competence high warmth

Pride

High competence low warmth

Envy

Stereotype threat

When one’s knowledge of stereotypes impacts people’s performance

Cognitive stereotype threat

Impaired cognitive processing

Affective stereotype threat

Anxiety or fear about confirming the stereotype

Caveats with stereotype threat

The category must be personally relevant to the person, reducing self-concern related to negative stereotypes

Ingroup favoritism

Tendency to respond more positively to people from our groups than we do to people from outgroups

Taifel et al found that when ppts could assign points to their group and another

They would not give themselves the most points rather give themselves the highest amount of points that still made sure the other group didn’t get many points as a result

Self enhancement

Creates positive attitudes about ingroup (low status groups show less ingroup favoritism and strong social identities)

Blatant discrimination

“Old fashioned” “go back to China”

Subtle discrimination

Brief everyday exchanges that send bad messages to outgroup members (microaggressions)

People are faster to shoot

Armed black targets than armed white targets

People are slower to not shoot

Unarmed black targets than white targets

In states with more permissive gun laws there are

More shootings of unarmed black targets

In states with higher proportion of non-whites they are

More likely to shoot black targets

Explicit Bias

Conscious beliefs, feelings, and behavior that people are perfectly willing to admit, are mostly hostile, and openly favor their own group

Implicit Bias

Unconscious beliefs, feelings, and behavior, outside of our awareness

Social Dominance Orientation SDO

Belief that group hierarchies are inevitable in all societies and even good, to maintain order and stability

Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA)

Tendency to endorse respect for obedience and authority in the service of group conformity; privileging of personal values and ideology

SDO ideas

Groups compete for economic resources and group hierarchies are inevitable

RWA Ideas

Groups compete over values and must follow authority

Intergroup Contact Hypothesis

Ingroup contact will reduce prejudice under the right conditions: Must show that stereotypes are wrong, situation promotes equal treatment, and condition must include interdependence

Extended Contact hypothesis

Learning about an ingroup member’s friendship with an outgroup member will reduce prejudice toward outgroup

Imagined Contact Hypothesis

Imagining a positive interaction with an outgroup member should reduce prejudice

Common Ingroup Identity (Gaertner et al)

Condition of a superordinate identity creates favorable ingroup attitudes, which can reduce prejudice

Collective Action

Deliberate actions to improve the well-being, power, or status of a group

Normative Action

Collective action that uses actions that conform to societal norms to promote change

Collective Action eg

Sit ins, Walk-outs, voting

Normative Action eg

Signing petitions and peaceful marches

Non-Normative action

Collective action that uses actions that do not conform to societal norms to promote change

Non-Normative Action eg

Disrupting traffic, confrontations with the police (making others uncomfortable or inconvienienced so that they are forced to pay attention)

Social identity Model of collective action - Injustice

Perception of group-based inequity; affective and cognition

Social Identity Model of Collective Action - Efficacy

Belief that action will lead to the desired outcome

Encapsulation model of social identity collective action

Injustice leads to social identity and collective action. Efficacy leads to social identity and collective action

Politicized Collective Identity

Form of collective identity that is the basis of motivations to engage in a power struggle

Politicized Collective Identity eg

Term people of color

SDO Ingroup belief

Ingroup must be tough and competitive

RWA Ingroup belief

Ingroup must unite and protect

SDO Outgroup belief

“They” are trying to beat “us”

RWA outgroup belief

“They” have bad values