Social Psychology Exam 2 Study Guide

Attitudes

• Positive or negative evaluations of people, objects, ideas, or situations.

  • Gordon Allport referred to attitudes as the single most indispensable concept in social psychology

Properties of attitudes: Valence

 Is your overall evaluation positive or negative?

Properties of attitudes: Extremity

How positive or negative is it?

Properties of attitudes: Strength

How strong or weak is your attitude?

Scale metaphor

Valence describes if the scale tips to the left, right, or not at all. Extremity describes how much the scale tips, indicating the amount of positive/negative feelings one holds.

Object appraisal

• Helps us classify things in our environment, thus organizing and simplifying our lives

  • BY knowing what is good and bad in our environment, we are able to maximize rewards (by approaching the good) and minimize punishments (by avoiding the bad)

Knowledge function

Helps people organize and interpret information

Value-expression function

Used to express central values or beliefs

Social-Adjustment functions

Attitudes affect our social relationships (can help or hurt them)

Ego-defensive function

Attitudes can help people protect their self-esteem.

ABC model: A

• Affect: Emotional feelings toward something.

  • Example: Feeling happy around dogs.

ABC model: B

• Behavior: Actions or behavioral intentions.

  • Example: Adopting a dog.

ABC: C

• Cognition: Thoughts and beliefs.

  • Example: Believing dogs provide companionship.

La Piere's Study

• Traveled with a Chinese couple who were generally served at hotels and restaurants.

• Later, establishments were surveyed and most reported they would refuse Chinese customers.

  • Finding: People's expressed attitudes do not always match their actual behavior.

Specificity Principle

To predict behavior from attitudes, match the level of specificity between the attitude and the behavior

• To predict specific behaviors, measure specific attitudes

• To predict general behaviors, measure general attitudes

Theory of Planned Behavior

 Behavior is predicted by intention, which is predicted by 3 factors:

• The attitude toward the behavior—specificity principle

• Subjective norms—our perceptions of what others think we should do

• Perceived behavioral control: nothing prevents you from doing the behavior (i.e. you can engage in the behavior if you wanted to)

Direct measures / Self-report

Ask people what their attitudes are; this assumes that people know their attitudes and will honestly report them.

• Attitude scale:  multiple-item questionnaire designed to measure a person’s attitude toward some object

• Problems with direct measures: It’s context sensitive

  • Scale

  • Question wording

  • Preceding questions (priming)

  • Social desirability response bias

Indirect measures

Measuring attitudes without directly asking people about them.

• Types:

  • Physiology: Measures bodily reactions.

    • Example: Increased heart rate when seeing something frightening.

  • Implicit measures: Measures automatic associations outside conscious awareness.

    • Example: Implicit Association Test (IAT).

  • Nonverbal behavior: Uses facial expressions, body language, and physical behavior.

    • Example: Avoiding eye contact with someone.

• Problems with indirect measures:

  • Expensive to collect

  • Difficult to interpret 

  • Predictive of behavior ?

Persuasion

Changing someone's attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors through communication.

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

Explains how people process persuasive messages through two different routes: central route and peripheral route.

ELM: Central Route

• Carefully evaluating the quality of arguments and evidence.

• Requires motivation and ability to think about the message.

• Produces stronger, longer-lasting attitude changes.

• Example: Researching the evidence behind a political policy before supporting it.

  • Used when: When people are motivated and able to think critically.

ELM: Peripheral Route

• Relying on superficial cues rather than carefully evaluating arguments.

• Focuses on attractiveness, popularity, emotions, or credibility.

• Produces weaker, shorter-lasting attitude changes.

• Example: Buying a product because a celebrity endorses it.

  • Used when: people have little motivation, time, or ability to process information.

Cognitive dissonance

Psychological discomfort when beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors contradict one another.

• Example: Believing smoking is unhealthy but continuing to smoke.

What does cognitive dissonance tell us about how our minds work?

• People want to feel consistent and rational.

• We sometimes change our attitudes to justify our behavior.

• We try to protect our self-image and reduce psychological discomfort.

Effort Justification Paradigm

People value something more when they put significant effort into obtaining it.

Aronson and Mills (1959)

• Participants went through either a difficult or easy initiation to join a discussion group.

• Everyone listened to the same boring discussion.

• Those who experienced the difficult initiation rated the group more positively.

• Finding: People justify their effort by convincing themselves the outcome was worthwhile.

Insufficient Justification Paradigm

When external rewards are insufficient to justify behavior, people may change their attitudes to reduce dissonance.

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)

• Participants completed a boring task and were asked to tell someone it was enjoyable.

• Some received $1, while others received $20.

• Participants paid $1 rated the task as more enjoyable than those paid $20.

• Finding: Smaller external rewards led to greater internal attitude change.

Conformity

•  Changing behavior or beliefs to match a group.

  • Example: Agreeing with friends to fit in.

Compliance

• Changing behavior in response to a direct request.

  • Example: Donating money when someone asks.

Obedience

• Following a direct order from an authority figure.

  • Example: Following a teacher's instructions.

Informational influence

Conforming because we believe others have more accurate information.

• Usually occurs when we are uncertain.

• Example: Following a crowd during an emergency because you assume they know where to go.

Sherif's Autokinetic Effect

• A stationary light appears to move in a dark room. Participants are asked to estimate how far a light moves in inches.

  • Participants initially gave different estimates of the light's movement.

  • When placed in groups, their estimates became increasingly similar.

• Finding: People use others' judgments as information when uncertain.

How Informational conformity leads to panic / mass hysteria

• The dark side of informational conformity

• Seeing others engage in an "inappropriate" response to ambiguous stimuli can cause us to react with the same response. 

  • Example: One person screams that there is a fire, causing a crowd to panic.

Public compliance

• Outwardly agreeing with a group without changing personal beliefs.

  • Example: Agreeing with friends to avoid conflict.

  • Seen in normative influence

Private acceptance

•  Genuinely changing personal beliefs to match the group.

  • Example: Actually adopting your friends' opinion.

  • Seen in informational influence

Normative influence

 Conforming because we want to be accepted or liked by others.

• Deviance (= not following norms) can hinder group acceptance 

• Example: Laughing at a joke because everyone else is laughing.

Asch's Line Judgment Study

• Participants identified which comparison line matched a standard line.

• Confederates intentionally gave incorrect answers.

• Participants conformed to the incorrect majority approximately 37% of the time on critical trials.

• Approximately 75% conformed at least once.

• Finding: People conform to avoid social rejection, even when the correct answer is obvious.

Implicit norms

• Unwritten social expectations.

  • Example: Being quiet in a library.

Explicit norms

• Clearly stated rules or expectations.

  • Example: No phones during class.

Descriptive norms

• What people actually do.

  • Violations are seen as odd

  • Example: Most students arrive early to class.

Prescriptive/injunctive norms

• Tell us what people should or should not do based on social expectations.

  • Violations are seen as bad

  • Example: Students should arrive on time.

Resisting normative influence

• Having an ally who disagrees with the majority.

• Being confident in personal judgments.

• Having a strong sense of individuality.

• Being willing to disagree with others.

Anti-bullying study

• Uses social norms to encourage positive behavior and discourage bullying.

• Shows students that most peers disapprove of bullying.

• Encourages students to stand up for victims.

• Main idea: Changing perceived social norms can encourage positive behavior.

Pluralistic ignorance

• When people privately disagree with something but mistakenly believe everyone else accepts it.

• Example: Everyone is confused in class but assumes everyone else understands.

Petrified Forest Study

• Researchers placed signs discouraging visitors from taking petrified wood.

• An Injustice message with a negative frame was the most persuasive:

  • “"Please don't remove the petrified wood from the park.”

Invisibilia: "Somali TV Show Aims to Change the World"

• Inspire Somalia used music, storytelling, and public participation to encourage social change.

• The show challenged restrictive social expectations and encouraged individual expression.

• Main idea: Media can change perceptions of what is socially acceptable.

Connection to social influence:

• Normative influence.

• Descriptive and injunctive norms.

• Pluralistic ignorance.

• Social norm change.

Rwanda Radio Soap Opera

• Researchers examined whether a radio soap opera promoting tolerance could change social behavior.

• Listeners showed changes in social norms and cooperative behavior.

• Personal beliefs did not necessarily change.

• Main idea: People can change their behavior based on perceived social expectations without changing their private attitudes.

Milgram's Study

Examine how far people will go when obeying an authority figure.

Basic paradigm

• Participants were assigned the role of a teacher.

• A confederate played the learner.

• Teachers were instructed to administer increasingly strong electric shocks for incorrect answers.

• The learner was not actually shocked.

• The experimenter encouraged participants to continue.

Milgram Study: Findings

• 65% continued to the maximum 450-volt level.

• Participants showed distress but often continued obeying.

• Main idea: Authority can override personal morals and influence behavior.

Milgram study: Variations and their effects

• Experimenter physically present: Increased obedience.

• Experimenter giving orders over the phone: Decreased obedience.

• Learner physically closer: Decreased obedience.

• Participant had to touch the learner: Decreased obedience.

• Two experimenters disagreed: Decreased obedience.

• Other teachers refused to continue: Decreased obedience.

• Prestigious university setting: Increased obedience.

• Less prestigious setting: Generally decreased obedience.

Classic interpretation of SPE: Social roles

•  Expected behaviors associated with a particular position in society.

• Situations and assigned social roles can influence behavior.

• People may adopt the behaviors expected of their roles.

  • Costs: 

    • Personal identities and personalities can get lost

    • Acting inconsistently with expectations has costs

Stanford Prison Experiment

• Conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971.

• College students were randomly assigned to be guards or prisoners.

• A simulated prison was created in Stanford University's basement.

• Guards became increasingly abusive, while prisoners became distressed and passive.

• The experiment ended after six days instead of the planned two weeks.

Contemporary interpretation of SPE: Identity leadership

• According to a 2018 update of the SPE, Zimbardo had a longer briefing session with the guards where he instructed them on what to do.

  • Cultivate sense of shared ingroup identity

  • Define ingroup people as noble and virtuous 

  • Outline action necessary for advancement of ingroup goals

• Engaged followership: The guards acted in accordance with what Zimbardo wanted them to do. Getting increasingly more bad to appease him.

  • Embrace sense of shared in group identity (‘us-ness’)

  • Understand action necessary for advancement of ingroup goals

  • Work towards leaders by responding enthusiastically and creatively to their pronouncements.

BBC Prison Study

• Conducted by Stephen Reicher and Alex Haslam.

• Examined group identity, leadership, and power in a simulated prison.

• Guards did not automatically become abusive.

• Guards and prisoners lived together as equals 

• Prisoners developed a shared identity and eventually challenged authority.

  • Finding: Social roles alone do not determine behavior; group identity and leadership matter.

Tankard & Paluck (2017)

• Topic: How Supreme Court decisions influence social norms and personal attitudes.

• Focus: The 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

Experimental study

• Topic: How Supreme Court decisions influence social norms and personal attitudes.

• Focus: The 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

Longitudinal study

• Researchers followed 1,063 people across five waves of data collection.

• Examined attitudes and perceptions of social norms before and after the actual Supreme Court ruling.

• Perceived social support for same-sex marriage increased.

• Personal attitudes did not significantly change.

Main findings

• Institutional decisions can change perceived social norms.

• Personal attitudes do not necessarily change alongside social norms.

• People may adjust their behavior based on what they believe society accepts.