Exam 2 - Social Psychology

how working with others on a task affects productivity

• easy tasks = increases good performance

• difficult tasks = increase poor performance

social loafing

reductions in individual output that occur due to working in a group

factors that reduce the likelihood of loafing

• limit the scope of the project

• keep the groups small

• use peer evaluations

situations that lead to social facilitation

• having a routine

• being monitored

• having a good group structure

situations that lead

• boring/meaningless tasks

• individual contributions not monitored

deindividuation

people lose sense of individuality and become less aware of their own values, instead focusing on the group and situation 

environmental cues and senses of identity that affect deindividuation

• arousal: loud noises, flashing lights, crowds, etc. make people rely on reactive decision-making than reflection

• anonymity: actions are not judged/traced when unidentifiable

• reduced feeling of individual responsibility: consequences are shared

types of tasks groups perform

• additive: group product is the sum of all the members’ contributions

• conjunctive: group product is determined by the individual with the poorest performance

• disjunctive: group product is (or can be) determined by the performance of the individual with the best performance

process loss

reduction in group performance due to obstacles created by group processes, such as problems of coordination and motivation

relationship between group performance and type of tasks

• additive: potential productivity increase, but suffers from social loafing

• conjunctive: group performance constrained by low individual ability/failure

• disjunctive: productivity determined by most capable member; can lead to process loss if groups fails to recognize the best idea

advantages and disadvantages of brainstorming

advantages: more ideas, diverse perspectives, thought-building, camaraderie, creativity

disadvantages: dominant personalities, production blocking/groupthink, social loafing, low-quality work, disorganization

group polarization

exaggeration of initial tendencies in the thinking of group members through group discussion

informational vs normative processes of group polarization

informational: influence that results from accepting new evidence and logical reasoning

normative: influence based on a person’s desire to be liked, accepted, and admired by others

groupthink antecedents

• high cohesiveness

• stressful situations

• group structure

  • homogeneous members

  • isolation

  • directive leadership

  • unsystematic procedures

groupthink behavioral symptoms

• overestimation of the group

• close-mindedness

• increased pressures toward uniformity

consequences of groupthink

high probability of a bad decision

roles of biased sampling, information processing biases, and transactive memory

biased sampling: tendency for groups to spend more time discussing shared information than unshared information

information processing bias: skews how groups share, gather, interpret, and act upon information

transactive memory: shared system for remembering information that enables multiple people to remember information together more efficiently than they could do so alone

strategies to improve group performance; what is the role of diversity in this

• interdependence

• purpose should be clear, challenging, and consequential

• teams should be small

• reward system

• technical assistance + training available

diversity can either cause the potential for cliques and misunderstandings, or open new perspectives

self-concept

sum total of beliefs that people have about themselves

how self-concept relates to ways we attend to, interpret, and remember the world around us

through self-schemas (belief people hold about themselves that guides the processing of self-relevant information)

how studying the brain sheds light on the nature of self-concept

taking abstract ideas (identity, memory, self-awareness) and turning them into concrete neural networks

“relational” self

we draw our sense of who we are from our past and current relationships with the significant others in our lives

social factors that contribute to “relational” self

• relationships

• other’s opinions

• past experiences

• culture

limitations of introspection

• we’re too mentally busy processing information that we fail to recognize our own thoughts, feeling, and behaviors

• overestimating the positives

• affecting forecasting: impact bias (overestimating intensity and duration of future emotional reactions)

affecting forecasting

process of predicting how one would feel in response to future emotional events

self-perception theory

theory that when internal cues are difficult to interpret, people gain self-insight by observing their own behavior

how self-perception theory applies to human behavior, emotion, and motivation

emotions: look at our actions to understand how we feel

behavior: use actions to understand kind of person we are

motivation: look at why we do certain things + what encourages us to continue doing them

overjustification effect

tendency for intrinsic motivation to diminish for activities that have become associated with reward or other extrinsic factors

overjustification’s relationship with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

intrinsic: doing it because you enjoy it

extrinsic: doing it to receive an award

social comparison theory

theory that people evaluate their own abilities and opinions by comparing themselves to others

when people engage in social comparison and with whom they compare themselves to

when: in states of uncertainty, when more objective means of self-evaluation are not available

who: others who are similar to us in relevant ways or even, at times, to others we admire, a form of “upward comparison”

two-factor theory of emotion

theory that the experience of emotion is based on two factors: physiological arousal and a cognitive interpretation of that arousal

two factor theory of emotion’s relevance to social comparison theory

we look to at other people to understand our own feelings

autobiographical memories

recollections of the sequences of events that have touched your life

how autobiographical memories are influenced by our self-concept

our memories help shape our identity, and our identity influences how we remember our past

influences of gender, race, and culture on our understanding of self

• independent vs. interdependent sense of self

• collectivism vs. individualism

• stereotypes

• roles in society

self-esteem

affective component of the self, consisting of a person’s positive and negative self-evaluations

why people have a “need for self-esteem”

• sociometer theory: theory that self-esteem is a gauge that monitors our social interactions and sends us signals as to whether our behavior is acceptable to others

• terror-management theory: theory that humans cope with the fear of their own death by constructing worldviews that help to preserve their self-esteem

potential costs associated with the pursuit of self-esteem

• becoming anxious

• avoiding risk of failure

• neglect needs of others

• suffer from stress-related health problems

self-discrepancy theory

psychological distress, self-esteem levels, an specific emotional states come from mismatches between different representations of the self

how self-discrepancy theory account for general level of and changes in people’s self esteem and how it impact shame, guilt, and anxiety

falling short of ideal-self lists can lower your self-esteem and make you feel guilty, shame, or anxious

different types of self-focusing situations and personality types

situations

private: events that force you to look inward

public: events that put you in the external spotlight

personality types

private self-consciousness: people analyze their moods and inner standards

public self-consciousness: people obsess over physical appearance, social presentation, and how they land on others

self-awareness “trap”

happens when endless introspection, overthinking, and rumination replace actual action and problem-solving

what is the concept of God

thinking about God could trigger a state of self-focus, make people behave more pro-socially, and can raise self-standards

limitations of self-regulation

self-regulation fatigue

ironic process of self-control and how it relates to self-regulation

happens when trying too hard to control/avoid a thought actually makes you think about it more; shows that controlling ourselves isn’t always easy

4 ways people strive for self-enhancement (positive illusions)

• self-serving beliefs

• self-handicapping

• basking in glory of others

• downward social comparisons

implications of self-enhancement for mental health and the perception of reality

causes the above average affect and for people to see the world/themselves with clinical accuracy to protect their ego

above-average affect

effect where people rate themselves as better, have illusions of personal control over random events, and have unrealistic optimism about the future

self-enhancement adaptivity conversations

adaptive: fuels resilience, persistence, and motivation

maladaptive: ignoring constructive criticism, prevents skill growth, and encourages alienation

comparison and contrast of strategic self-presentation and self-verification

difference is that strategic self-presentation is about how we want others to see us, whereas self-verification is about wanting others to see us how we already see ourselves

importance of first perception in social perception

can function as a survival and social mechanism to assess intent, safety, and competence

cues that contribute to snap judgements

• baby-faced vs. mature features

• neutral faces vs angry faces

• names (provoking stereotypes)

• neatness vs. messiness

roles of nonverbal cues in social perception

can act as a survival tool to be wary of certain people based on their emotions

research about perception of angry faces

angry faces arouse us and cause us to frown even when presented subliminally and without our awareness, and are easier to spot or look away from angry faces in a crowd

roles of other nonverbal cues (body language, eye contact, touch)

enabling us to make quick and sometimes accurate judgments of others based on thin slices of expressive behavior

role of cultural norms in evaluating nonverbal behavior

different cultures have different rules for the common greetings, or other nonverbal cues

attribution theory

group of theories that describe how people explain the causes of behavior

attribition

how we assign causes of observed behaviors, events, or outcomes in ourselves and others

personal attribitions vs. situational attributions

personal: internal characteristics of an actor, such as ability, personality, mood, or effort

situational: factors external to an actor, such as the task, other people, or luck

Jones’s correspondent inference theory

people try to figure out if someone’s actions show what kind of person they really are

kelley’s covariation theory

people use covariation principle (why someone acts a certain way by looking at when that behavior happens and when it doesn’t)

cognitive heuristics

information-processing rules of thumb that enable us to think in ways that are quick and easy but that often lead to error

availability heuristic

tendency to estimate the odds that an event will occur by how easily instances of it pop to mind

relationship between availability heuristic, false-consensus effect, and base-rate fallacy

availability heuristic: we judge how common/likely something is based on how easily examples come to mind

false-consensus effect: we assume that other people think, feel, or behave the same way we do

base-rate fallacy: we ignore general statistics or facts and focus too much on specific examples when making a judgement

counterfactual thinking

tendency to imagine alternative events or outcomes that might have occurred but did not

when counterfactual thinking is likely to occur

• something unexpected/negative happens

• close call or barely miss an opportunity

• wish we made a different decision

fundamental attribution error

tendency to focus on the role of personal causes and underestimate the impact of situations on other people’s behavior

factors that make fundamental attribution error occur more/less likely

• more likely: when we focus on someone’s actions and ignore the situation around them

• less likely: when we take time to understand situation and consider what person might be going to

fundamental attribution error vs. actor-observer effect

fundamental attribution error: we judge other people’s behavior based on their personality instead of their situation

actor-observer effect: we explain our own behavior based on the situation but explain other people’s behavior based on their personality

2 explanations for the actor-observer effect

perceptual differences: when watching someone else, we focus on the person and their behavior

information differences: we know more about our own lives, experiences, and reasons for acting a certain way that we know about other people

role of culture in attribution

individualistic: tend to focus on personal traits, personality, and individuality

collectivistic: focus more on social situations, relationships, and outside influences

how attribution biases stem from motivational factors (such as desire to take more credit for success than for failure)

happens when we explain why something happened in a way that favors ourselves in order to protect our feelings

belief in a just world

people get what they deserve and deserve what they get

factors that lead to defensive attributions

• personal safety

• similarity

• personal responsibility

averaging and summation models of impression formation

averaging: the higher the average value of all the various traits, the better

summation: the more positive traits there are, the better

role of perceiver characteristics (including effects of individual differences, priming, and mood) on impresion formation

individual differences: everyone has different personalities, experiences, and beliefs so we see the same person differently

priming: something we recently saw, heard, or experienced can influence how we judge someone

mood: how we feel can affect how we see others

role of target characteristics (including effects of individual differences, priming, and mood) on impression formation

trait negativity bias: the tendency for negative information to weigh more heavily on our impressions than positive information

confirmation bias

tendency to seek, interpret, and create information that verifies existing beliefs

how belief perseverance, confirmatory hypothesis testing, and self-fulfilling prophecy can contribute to this confirmation bias

belief perseverance: a tendency to retain to one’s initial beliefs even after they had been discredited

confirmatory hypothesis testing: when we look for information that supports what we already believe

self-fulfilling prophecy: expecting someone to act a certain way, treat them differently, which can cause them to act the way you expected

relationship between confirmation bias and belief perseverance

these biases make it harder for us to change our opinions because we look for information that proves us right rather than considering other possibilities

self-fulfilling prophecy; example

when you expect someone to act a certain way, you treat them differently, which can cause them to act the way you expected; when i know that i’m already bad at sports so i don’t put in a lot of effort

how people fare as social perceivers (reasons to be optimistic/pessimistic) regarding people’s competence as social perceivers

optimistic

• understand other’s emotions and behaviors

• use past experiences to help us understand others

• can recognize social cues + facial expressions and body language

• can learn form our mistakes and improve our judgements

pessimistic

• sometimes make quick judgements without enough information

• can make assumptions/stereotypes about others

• mood and personal opinions can affect how we judge others

  • tend to look for information that supports what we already believe

how evolutionary theory accounts for helping behavior

helping others can improve chances of survival and reproduction

kin selection

more likely to help people who’re related to us

reciprocal altruism

we help others because they may help us in return someday

comparison and contrast of egoistic and altruistic motives for helping

egoistic motives: helping someone because you get something out of it

altruistic motives: helping someone because you genuinely care about them and want to make their situation better without expecting anything in return

empathy-altruism hypothesis

when we feel empathy for someone, we’re more likely to help them because we genuinely want to make them feel better

bystander effect

effect whereby the presence of others inhibits helping

5 steps in helping process

1. notice something is happening

   1. obstacles: stimulus overload (being used to something happening)

2. interpret event as emergency

   1. obstacles: more ambiguous, less bystander to help

3. take responsibility

   1. obstacles: pluralistic ignorance (people think thoughts/feeling different from others)

4. decide how to help

   1. obstacles: incompetence

5. provide help

   1. obstacles: audience inhibition (fear of making social blunder)

influence of other situational factors on helping behavior

time pressure: when we’re busy, stressed, or rushing we don’t notice someone who needs help. even if we notice, we might not help because we feel like we don’t have enough time

location: people more likely to help in places they feel safe/comfortable

culture: some cultures encourage helping others and putting needs of group before own

mood: people in a good mood may be more likely to help because they feel happier/positive

role models: seeing someone else help can encourage us to help too

social norms: if helping others is expected, people more likely to help

how personality, moral reasoning, and family background affect a person’s likelihood of helping others

personality: people who may have an altruistic personality are more likely to help

moral reasoning: people at higher, more post-conventional stages of moral reasoning base their actions on universal ethical principles, justice, and human rights than fear of punishment or social approval

family background: children with parents who regularly help people are more likely to help

characteristics of people in need

attractiveness: people more likely to help someone they find attractive

perceived responsibility: people more likely to help someone they believe isn’t responsible for situation

gender: people more likely to help women in certain situations because of traditional values

similarity: people more willing to help someone who’s similar to them

closeness: people more likely to help friends, family, or people they know

aggression

behavior intended to harm others

anger, hostility, and violence

anger: strong feelings of displeasure in response to a perceived injury

hostility: negative, antagonis tic attitude toward another person or group

violence: extreme acts of aggression

instrumental vs. emotional aggression

instrumental: aggressive behavior whereby harm is inflicted as a means to a desired end

emotional: aggressive behavior where the means and the end coincide; harm is inflicted for its own sake

role of culture in aggression and attitudes toward aggression

• acceptance of domestic assault

• japanese subways

• soccer hooliganism

• nonviolent culture

• gun violence

• individual cultures more direct aggression

• collectivist more harmony

gender differences found to predict aggression

• men more physically/verbally aggressive (overt)

• women more indirect/relational aggressive (hurting someone through social connections/relationships)

• men aggress more when faced with rival mates

individual differences found to predict aggression

• being high on neuroticism, low on agreeableness and openness can lead to aggression

• emotional susceptibility: tendency to feel distressed, inadequate, and vulnerable to perceived threats

• type A personality: tendency to be driven by feelings of inadequacy to try to prove oneself through personal accomplishments

• impulsivity: being relatively unable to control one’s thoughts and behaviors

is aggression innate (evolutionary perspective + role of biological/brain factors)

aggression can be innate because:

• it helped humans survive

• protect themselves/family

• compete for sources

• hormones

• certain parts of brain help control emotions and aggressive reactions