ch 13 Social Psychology

Notes and vocab

Social Psychology

the scientific study of how we think about, influence, and relate to others

Heider’s Attribution Theory

the tendency to give an explanation or judgement call on someone’s behavior based on the situation or the person’s disposition

(example) When a student takes notes they it can be due to the student’s disposition (good student) or the situation (good teacher) or both.

attribution theory (example)

dispositional

internal, personality

situational

external, environment

bias

tendency to not be accurate

self-serving bias

attributing the positive events in our lives to our disposition while the negative events are due to our situation

actor-observer bias

tendency to give a different explanation for one’s behavior when on is the actor of a situation vs. when someone is an observer to that behavior

actor (actor-observer bias)

blame the situation when you are in it

observer (actor-observer bias)

attribute behavior to a person’s (in it) character

Fundamental attribution error (FAE)

Observers will have a tendency to blame others’ behaviors and underestimate the impact of the situation

Calling someone a bad driver, but they may be in an emergency

example of fundamental attribution error

Western countries

these countries tend to be individualist

individualist

underestimating the influence of the situation and overestimating the effects of certain traits

attitudes

Feelings (affect) influenced by beliefs (cognition) which predispose people to have a specific reaction (behavior) to objects, people, and events

peripheral route persuasion

people are persuaded by the finer details and incidental cues.

example of peripheral route persuasion

If Beyonce was advocating for a certain brand, you will want to buy that brand

central route persuasion

when you are persuaded by the facts and logic of an argument (takes most time)

example of central route persuasion

Your counselor is telling you to take AP and Honors classes because it will get you into college. There is logical reasoning behind this argument that will persuade you to take these classes.

foot in the door phenomenon

ask someone for a small favor and later ask for a larger favor

door in the face phenomenon

ask someone for an outrageous request, they will decline, then ask for a smaller request, which they will accept.

Zimbardo’s Prison Study

Stanford Professor gives students one of two roles: prisoner or guard. While this was a “pretend” scenario, many of the students who embraced their roles to the point “guards” became violent and “prisoners” started to rebel or break down. This study type is now considered unethical by the APA

lesson learned from Zimbardo’s Prison Study

Learned that roles play a powerful part in our lives

cognitive dissonance theory

Tendency to feel discomfort (dissonance) when the attitudes and behavior of a person clash.

chameleon effect

automatic mimicry where we copy other people’s behaviors to fit in

conformity

When we adjust our behavior or thinking to coincide with a group’s standard

example of conformity

your group likes matcha lattes, not ube milk teas. So you get matcha lattes to fit in.

normative social influence

influence resulting from a person’s desire to gain approval and avoid disapproval.

example of normative social influence

In Mean Girls, Cady wants to gain the approval of the Plastics, so she dresses like them and acts like them

informational social influence

influence resulting from one’s willingness to accept others’ opinions about reality

example of informational social influence

When looking for a restaurant, people will check yelp and look at the reviews. If a place has a lot of reviews and high ratings, people will trust those comments and eat at that restaurant.

Solomon Asch’s Line Studies

In a room of 8 people, 1 is the participant, the rest are actors. The group is told to analyze which of the 3 lines resemble another line. It is clear which is the right answer, but all the actors choose the incorrect one. While the participant is surprised by the others he still conforms to the group’s standard and chooses what everyone else did.

criteria to fit in/conform to a group

* feel incompetent/insecure
* Group of at least 3 people
* Everyone else agrees
* Person admires group’s status/attractiveness
* No opinion yet
* Feel like they are being observed
* Culture encourages the respect of social standard

Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiments

The study is about obedience but its cover was about “learning.” There would be a learner (actor) and teacher (participant). If the learner got a question wrong, the teacher would “shock” them with voltage (this was fake). The voltage would increase for every wrong question. If the teacher would object to the study, a scientist would simply state “the study must go on” and the teacher would obey. This experiment is considered unethical.

Findings of the Stanley Milgram Experiments

* Person giving orders must be nearby and legitimate
* Credible (ethos)
* The victim is depersonalized or at a distance
* No role model for defiance

difference between conformity and obedience

conformity = request, to go along with a group for social acceptance

obedience = order, obey someone due to higher status/social power

the type of people who did not follow Milgram’s Obedience Experiment

medical professionals or those with social stability (If I don’t listen to you, I still have people who will give me support)

Social Facilitation

the presence of others will help improve the performance of easy or well-learned tasks but decrease performance on difficult tasks

Social inhibition

the presence of others will hold people back since they are watching us.

social loafing

Tendency for people to exert less effort when pooling their effort towards a certain common goal; people are less accountable in this setting

example of social loafing

group projects where others believe members of the group will do the work so they do not have to exert much energy.

deindividuation

loss of self-awareness or restraint that occurs in a group setting which fosters anonymity; example of negative conformity

example of deindividuation

joining a riot or a gang or cult

difference between deindividuation and social loafing

social loafing = not give effort in a group because you feel less individual accountability

deindividuation = less individuality in self-awareness and restraint

group polarization

group discussions with like-minded others that strengthen the previous beliefs.

groupthink

Driven to a desire of harmony in a decision making group which derides the realistic appraisal of alternatives

difference between group polarization and groupthink

group polarization = solidifies opinions in a discussion and is polar to opposing

groupthink = desire for harmony which causes bad decision making

individual power

When a small minority acts consistently and expresses their views which sways the majority (i.e. MLK)

4 factors that make a good group

1. Diverse background
2. Decentralized - no “bossy” person
3. Listen to everyone and summarize to one verdict
4. Independent people - have their own opinions

Prejudice

Unjustifiable attitude toward a group and its members

(affect/feeling)

Stereotype

Overgeneralization of a group

(cognition/belief)

Discrimination

Unjustifiable negative behavior toward a group and its members

implicit prejudice

not aware of

people may deny prejudice but may carry negative association

unconscious patronization

lower expectations for a minority (pity)

reflexive bodily response

unconscious selective responses when looking at faces

causes of prejudice

just-world phenomenon and stereotypes

just-world phenomenon

good is reward and evil is punished

reason why just-world phenomenon is bad

negative association to underprivileged

Ingroup

“us” - people with whom we share a common identity

Outgroup

“them” - people perceived as different from our ingroup

Ingroup Bias

the tendency to favor our own group

homogeneous outgroup bias

Tendency to assume that the members of another group are very similar to each other

Scapegoat theory

Theory that prejudice offers an outlet for anger by providing someone to blame (justified)

type of people more likely to have have high prejudice

economically frustrated people; temporary frustration increases prejudice

other-race effect

tendency to recognize our own races faces and think that other races look the same

Vivid cases

memorable events that affects our perception of other groups

social script

way to behave in social setting

3 levels of biology that influence aggression

1. genetics (Y chromosome, alcohol)
2. Neural influence (frontal lobe damage)
3. Biochemical (testosterone)

example of vivid cases

the attack on 9/11 left a vivid case on Islamic people. Others created a stereotype that all terrorists are muslim.

formula for prosocial relations

* proximity (mere-exposure)
* physical attractiveness
* similarity of attitudes and interests

mere-exposure effect

phenomenon that repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of them

passionate love

aroused state of interest and positive intense absorption of another. Usually present at the beginning of a romantic relationship

companionate love

deep affectionate attachment we feel for those with whom our lives are intertwined

altruism

unselfish concern for the welfare of others

When are people most likely to help a person

notice incident (is it an emergency?)

odds of being helped is if person is female

Situational factors (i.e. unhurried, good mood, guilt, etc.)

what makes a lasting relationship

equity = condition of receiving a portion of what they give (partnership)

Self-disclosure = revealing intimate aspects (truthful)

bystander effect

tendency for any given bystander to be less likely to give aid to others if multiple bystanders are present

causes of bystander effect

1. too many people, so assume others will help
2. Not your responsibility MINDSET

Socialization norm

social expectation that prescribes how we should behave (ex. sharing is caring - taught at young age)

Reciprocity Norm

Expectations that people will respond favorably to each other by returning benefits for benefits (gift for a gift)

social-responsibility norm

expectation that people should help those who depend on them

conflict

perceived incompatibility of action, goal, or ideas

social trap

situation where conflicting parties each pursue self-interest rather than the group’s. (mutually destructive behavior)

Prisoner’s dilemma

give up something with the least risk

ex: guilty or not guilty (court)

Commoner’s Dilemma

wanting of more than the fair share of resources (limited resources)

Ex: junk food

mirror image perceptions

mutual views often held by people of conflicting sides. One sees themselves as ethical and peaceful while the other sees evil and aggressive

self-fulfilling prophecies

what you believe ends up happening

4 C’s to promote peace

1. Contact - must have equal ground
2. Cooperation - work together
3. Communication - with third party
4. Conciliation - Concede to the other party (vise versa)

GRIT

(Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-Reduction) an alternative to war or surrender; lead to peace spiral (lots of time)

example of GRIT

Palestine and Israel start to give in to the other which leads to stopping war and beginning peace. (Win-Win)