Chapter 13: Social Psychology

Stereotypes

A belief, positive or negative, about the characteristics of members of a group that is applied generally to most members of the group

Ultimate Attribution Error

Results from stereotyping, connecting the negative behaviour of some group entirely to their disposition, and connecting positive behaviours to luck or assume they are rare exceptions

Prejudice

Drawing conclusions (typically negative) about a person or group of people prior to evaluating the evidence

Adaptive conservatism

Evolutionary principle that creates a predisposition toward distrusting anything or anyone unfamiliar or different

In-group bias

The tendency to favour individuals within our group than outside.

Out-group homogeneity

The tendency to view all individuals outside our group as highly similar (e.g. whereas Italians see themselves as quite diverse and different from one another, Americans view Italians as more similar to each other)

Explicit prejudice Vs. Implicit prejudice

Prejudice we are aware of or prejudice that are automatic or unconscious

Jigsaw Approach

An educational perspective designed to minimize prejudice by requiring all children to make independent contributions to a shared project

Discrimination

Negative behaviour toward members of out-groups or the act of treating members of out-groups differently from members of in-groups (i.e. acting on prejudice)

Social Influence

Includes obedience, conformity, and more (we have to abide and conform to expectations and rules of certain groups)

Most processes are **adaptive** under most circumstances, however, they can turn **maladaptive** when they are blind or unquestioning (i.e. blindly following expectations and rules without questioning why)

These processes (conformity, obedience) generally serve us well, unless accepted unquestioningly

The Need-to-Belong Theory

Humans have a biologically based need for interpersonal connections

Social Comparison Theory

We seek to evaluate our beliefs, attitudes, and abilities by comparing them with those of others

Upward social comparison

Comparing ourselves with people who seem superior to us in some way, can boost our self-concept

Downward social comparison

Comparing ourselves with people who seem inferior to us in some way, can boost our self-concept

The Fundamental Attribution Error

When it comes to evaluating our own behaviour, we do the opposite (overestimate the impact of situational influences, and underestimate the impact of dispositional influences), may be due to the fact that we are unaware of others’ situational factors, and very aware of our own.

Example: when someone else performs poorly on a test, we tend to attribute the performance to intelligence (“he must not be very smart”). However, when we do poorly on a test, the attribution tends to become external (“the test was not fair”)

Attribution

The process of assigning cause to behaviour (i.e. inferring the cause of a behaviour)

Overestimation of Behaviour

Attributing attitude to the impact of dispositional influences (e.g. traits like intelligence or personality)

Underestimation of Behaviour

Attributing attitude to the impact of situational influences (e.g. financial status or external pressures)

Bystander Effect or Nonintervention

When people see someone in need but fail to help them

Pluralistic Ignorance

Error of assuming that no one in a group perceives things as we do (e.g. not speaking up when a friend cheats on his math test because you incorrectly think that the rest of your friends believe cheating is okay, even though you personally believe that cheating is wrong)

Diffusion of Responsibility

Reduction in feelings of personal liability in the presence of others

Social Loafing

Phenomenon whereby individuals become less productive in groups (i.e. when people slack off in groups), due partly to diffusion of responsibility (we expect that others will make up for the slack). One antidote is to ensure that each person in the group is identifiable

Conformity

The tendency of people to alter their behavior as a result of group pressure

Solomon Asch’s experiments

Experimenting on conformity in the 1950s → actors were told to say that line 3 is the same as the standard line, and participants said the same, despite the fact that they knew line 2 was the correct answer

Social Influences on Conformity

Unanimity increases it. There is a lower if another person in the group differs from the majority (we are less likely to conform if we know that there is someone behind us). The size of the majority increases to a point. Low self-esteem makes you more likely

Deindividuation

The tendency to engage in atypical behavior when stripped of your usual identity, people do strange things in groups that they wouldn’t do normally if they were by themselves.

When people are part of a crowd, they have more anonymity and lack of responsibility than when they are alone.

Example: Vancouver Canucks fans rioting after losing the game → if there was only 1 fan, they most likely wouldn’t have rioted and caused all this destruction

Groupthink

An emphasis on group unanimity at the expense of critical thinking and sound decision making. Real life examples (people knew that something was wrong but didn’t want to come forward):

* E-coli in the Walkerton water supply
* Challenger Space Shuttle explosion

Obedience

The adherence to instructions and orders from those of higher authority. An essential ingredient in our daily lives (e.g. stop lights and parking signs). Can produce trouble when people stop asking why they’re behaving as others want them to

The Milgram Paradigm

Learner \= an actor pretending to get shocked, teacher \= the actual participant who is doing the shocking, experimenter \= authority figure

2 Key Findings from the Milgram Paradigm study

* The greater the distance between teacher and experimenter, the less obedience (no authority figure)
* The greater the distance between teacher and learner, the more the obedience (teacher can’t see the learner, therefore he feels less bad about electrocuting him).

Predictors of disobedience: More morally advanced, Lower level of authoritarianism

Cognitive Dissonance

An unpleasant mental experience of tension resulting from two conflicting and opposing thoughts or beliefs, we are motivated to reduce or eliminate it

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

We can reduce the conflict between two cognitions (beliefs) in multiple ways: Changing the first cognition, Changing the second cognition, and Introducing a third cognition that resolves the conflict