Social Psych Exam 2

The ABCs of Group Perception

Affect = Prejudice

Behavior = Discrimination

Cognition = Stereotyping

Stereotyping

A belief that connects an entire group with certain traits

Prejudice

A positive or negative evaluation of people based on their group

Discrimination

Treating someone differently because of their group

Social Categorization

Sorting people into groups

Group

Consists of people who interact over time and share an identity, goal, or fate

Ingroup

A group you belong to

Outgroup

A group you do not belong to

Ingroup Bias

Favoring your own group

Outgroup Homogeneity Effect

Thinking “they are all alike,” while noticing differences within your own group

Schemas

Organized knowledge in memory

Spreading Activation

Activating one idea makes linked ideas easier to access

Priming

Occurs when recent exposure makes an idea more accessible and affects a later judgment

Confirmatory Bias

Noticing or interpreting evidence in ways that support an existing belief

Subtyping

Treating a person who contradicts a stereotype as an exception, so the original stereotype stays intact

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

An expectation changes your treatment of someone, and that treatment encourages a response that seems to confirm your expectation

How to Reduce Automatic Stereotyping

Egalitarian goals

Perspective taking

Focusing on individual informal

Implementation intention (“When I notice a group cue, I will consider information that challenges the stereotype.”)

Sexism

Prejudice or discrimination based on gender, including institutional or cultural practices that maintain one gender’s dominance

Gender

Cultural meanings and expectations associated with masculinity, femininity, and other gender identities

Sex

A classification assigned at birth based on sex characteristics, such as male, female, and intersex

Objectification

Treating a person, especially a woman, mainly as a body or object rather than a full person with abilities, thoughts, and agency

Hostile Sexism

Openly negative or resentful beliefs about women, especially women seen as challenging men’s power

Example: Calling women unfit for leadership because they are “too emotional”

Benevolent Sexism

Apparently affectionate or protective beliefs that assume women are weak, dependent, or need men’s protection

Example: Excluding a qualified woman from a demanding role “for her own good.”

Ambivalent Sexism

The combination of hostile and benevolent sexism. Someone may praise women who follow traditional roles while resenting women who challenge them

Implicit Sexism

Automatic or unintended gender-based associations that can influence judgments and treatment

Example: Automatically picturing a man when hearing “leader”

Why does benevolent sexism matter?

A belief can sound kind, but also limiting. It implies women are less capable and weak

Racism

Race-based prejudice or discrimination, including institutional or cultural practices that promote one racial group’s domination over another

Old-fashioned Racism

Blatant, explicit racial hostility or claims of racial inferiority. The bias is direct and hard to explain away

Modern Racism

Subtle bias that appears when it is socially safer or can be justified using a seemingly nonracial reason

Example: Applying an ambiguous hiring standard more harshly to a racial minority applicant

Implicit Racism

Automatic or unintended racial associations that can affect judgment or behavior. It can differ from a person’s stated commitment to equality

Dovidio et al. (1999)

Explicit/self-report prejudice related to more controlled verbal responses; implicit prejudice related to nonverbal behavior such as less eye contact and more blinking. A person’s words may sound accepting while the interaction feels cold

Stereotype Threat

Worry about confirming a negative group stereotype can distract someone and harm performance

Social Identity Theory

Part of self-esteem comes from group memberships

Favoring your ingroup, improving its status, or identifying with a valued group can support self-esteem

Realistic Conflict Theory

Actual or perceived competition over limited resources, such as jobs or political power, can produce intergroup hostility.

Perceived threats can matter even without direct competition

Contact Hypothesis

Contact between groups works best with equal status, mutual interdependence/cooperation toward shared goals, personalized interaction, and support from authorities or social norms

(Putting people in the same room does not guarantee improvement)

Attitude

A positive, negative, or mixed evaluation of a person, object, or idea

Positive Attitude

High positive reaction, low negative reaction

Negative Attitude

Low positive reaction, high negative reaction

Ambivalent Attitude

High positive and negative reactions

Indifferent Attitude

Low positive and negative attitudes

Tripartite Model of Attitudes

Attitudes have affective, behavioral, and cognitive bases. These bases can conflict

How do we measure attitudes?

Self-report

Bogus pipeline

Facial EMG

Evaluative priming

When do attitudes predict behavior?

When attitude and behavior match in target, action, context, and time

The attitude based are consistent and not ambivalent

The situation allows free choice

The attitude is strong

Strong Attitudes

Tend to persist, resist persuasion, and predict behavior

Persuasion

The process of changing attitudes

What are the factors of persuasion?

Source (who delivers the message)

Message (what is said)

Audience (who receives it)

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

Elaboration means thinking carefully about a message.

Motivation and ability determine how much elaboration occurs.

A personally relevant topic raises motivation; distraction or fatigue can reduce ability

Central Route

Careful evaluation of the message’s evidence and logic. Most likely when motivation and ability are high.

Strong arguments are more persuasive than weak ones.

Attitudes formed through careful thinking generally last longer, resist counterarguments, and guide behavior more reliably

Peripheral Route

Limited evaluation of the arguments, with greater reliance on simple cues such as attractiveness, expertise, number of arguments, or pleasant association

Most likely when motivation or ability is low.

Resulting changes are generally less durable.

Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman (1981)

Students heard a proposal for comprehensive graduation exams. Researchers varied personal relevance (next years versus in ten years), argument quality (strong versus weak), and source expertise (an expert commission versus a high-school class). The outcome was attitudes toward the proposal

Results of Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman (1981)

High relevance: Argument quality had a larger effect. Strong arguments produced more favorable attitudes than weak arguments, support central processing.

Low relevance: Source expertise had a larger effect. An expert source produced more favorable attitudes, supporting peripheral processing.

When personal relevance is high, attitudes reflect careful consideration of the message arguments

When personal relevance is low, attitudes reflect source expertise

Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger)

Inconsistency between beliefs, attitudes, or behavior can create uncomfortable psychological tension. People are motivated to reduce that discomfort

How People Reduce Dissonance

Change behavior: Stop smoking

Change an attitude or belief: Convince yourself smoking is less risky than you though

Add supporting cognition: “Smoking helps me handle stress)

Reduce importance: “Health is not my main priority right now”

Reducing discomfort does not always mean correcting the behavior or reasoning accurately

When does behavior change attitudes?

Insufficient justification

Insufficient punishment

Effort justification

Post-decision dissonance

Insufficient Justification

An external reward or excuse is too small to explain a freely chosen action that conflicts with an attitude. The person may change the attitude to justify the action internally

Insufficient Punishment

A threatened punishment is too mild to fully explain why you avoided doing something, so you may convince yourself that you didn’t really want to do it anyway

Effort Justification

Valuing an outcome more after working or suffering to obtain it

Post-decision Dissonance

Discomfort after choosing between appealing options. People may emphasize chosen option’s strengths and downplay the rejected option’s strengths; the alternatives seem farther apart

Self-Perception Theory (Bem)

People infer their attitudes by observing their own behavior and its circumstances, especially when attitudes are weak or unclear. Discomfort is not required!

Self-Esteem Account (Aronson)

Dissonance is especially important when behavior threatens a valued self-image, such as being competent, honest, or kind

New Look at Dissonance (Cooper & Fazio)

Emphasizes personal responsibility for

Conformity

Changing perceptions, opinions, or behavior to match group norms. No direct request is necessary.

Norm

A shared expectation about appropriate behavior.

A descriptive norm concerns what people do

An injunctive norm concerns what people approve of

Two Reasons People Conform

Informational influence: Following others because you believe they are correct. Common when the situation is ambiguous. It can produce private acceptance as well as public agreement

Normative influence: Following others to gain acceptance or avoid rejection. You may agree publicly without changing your private belief

Sherif (1936)

Participants estimated movement of a stationary light in a dark room. The autokinetic effect made it appear to move, creating an ambiguous task. Group estimates converged on a shared norm, illustrating informational influence.

Asch Study

Participants judged clearly visible line lengths after confederates gave wrong answers. They conformed to the incorrect majority group on roughly 32% to 37% of the critical trials. The study illustrates normative pressure even when the correct answer is clear.

What affects conformity?

Group Size: Adding a few people increases pressure, but increases level off; influence does not grow endlessly

Allies in dissent: One dissenter breaks unanimity and makes independence easier

Accuracy incentives: Rewarding correct answers can increase attention to accuracy

Awareness or norms: A clear, noticeable norm can guide behavior

Culture, group status, and personality: Also matter; situational effects are often larger

Minority influence

A numerical minority can influence a majority through consistent dissent, being accepted within the group, and avoiding a threat to the group’s existence

Minority influence can encourage private acceptance, careful though, and creativity

Idiosyncrasy Credits (Hollander)

Trust earned by demonstrating competence and initially following group norms. An accepted insider may later have more freedom and influence to challenge those norms.

Compliance

Changing behavior in response to a direct request.

Why Requests Work

Mindlessness: Responding using a familiar shortcut rather than examining the request

Norm of reciprocity: Feeling that you should return a favor or concession. Pre-giving uses a favor or gift before asking for something

Door-in-the-face

Large —> smaller

Asking a large favor likely to be refused, then a smaller favor.

The reduction feels like a concession, encouraging reciprocity

That’s-not-all

Improve the deal before an answer

Present an offer, then reduce its price or add benefits before the person decides.

The apparent concession encourages reciprocity

Foot-in-the-door

Small —> larger related request

Get agreement to a small request, then make a different, larger related request

Consistency pressure and a helpful self-image encourage agreement

Low-balling

Commit —> raise the cost

Get agreement, then reveal a higher cost for the same commitment.

People may stay consistent with their earlier decision

Other Factors to Compliance

Scarcity: makes a limited opportunity seem more valuable or urgent

Similarity/Attractiveness: may increase liking and compliance, depending on the audience

Independence, assertiveness, and defiance resist compliance