w3 social thinking and behaviour

Attribution

judgements about the causes of behaviour

Personal (internal) attribution

making the assumption that someone’s behaviour is explained by inherent traits, abilities, or characteristics

Situational (external) attribution

making the assumption that someone’s behaviours  explained by circumstances or environment

Kelley’s Covariation Model

we make decisions about people’s capabilities based on the situation at hand

• consistency - is this a repeated behavior?

• distinctiveness - is this unique or odd?

• consensus - everyone else also acting like this?

Fundamental attribution error

tendency to overestimate personal causes for others’ behaviour

Actor–observer bias

tendency to explain our own behaviour as situational but others’ as dispositional

Self-serving bias

attributing successes to internal factors and failures to external factors

Social categorization

tendency to classify people into groups (in-group vs out-group)

Self-concept

beliefs and perceptions about the self

Self-esteem

overall evaluation of self-worth (personal and social identity)

Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

self-esteem derives partly from group memberships

Regulatory focus theory

motivation guided by promotion (gains) or prevention (avoiding losses)

Attitude

evaluative reaction (positive/negative) toward people, objects, or ideas

Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957)

discomfort from inconsistency between attitude and behaviour motivates change

Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972)

• we make inferences about our own attitudes based on how we observe ourselves to behave

Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo)

persuasion via central route (logic) or peripheral route (cues like attractiveness)

Conformity

adjustment of behaviours and beliefs to fit group standard

Normative influence

conforming to gain acceptance or avoid rejection

Informational influence

conforming because others are a source of information

Asch line study (1951)

37% conformed to majority’s wrong answer; influenced by unanimity and group size. line study

Minority influence

effective if minority is consistent, confident, not too deviant

Ostracism

social exclusion that produces psychological pain

Compliance

behaviour change due to direct request

Foot-in-the-door technique

agreeing to a small request increases likelihood of agreeing to larger one

Door-in-the-face technique

refusing a large request increases compliance to a smaller one

Lowballing

compliance gained by getting agreement, then revealing hidden costs

Obedience (Milgram, 1963)

65% delivered maximum shock; obedience increased when authority was close and victim remote

Engaged followership

obedience explained by identification with authority’s cause rather than blind submission

Social facilitation

presence of others enhances simple task performance but hinders complex tasks. seen in Norman Triplett (1898)’s study on bicycling speeds

Social loafing

tendency to reduce effort when working in groups

Deindividuation

loss of self-awareness and restraint in groups (e.g., Stanford Prison Experiment)

Groupthink

faulty decision-making when group harmony is prioritized over critical evaluation

Group polarization

group discussion shifts opinions toward more extreme positions

In-group favouritism

tendency to evaluate own group more positively

Out-group homogeneity bias

perception that out-group members are all alike

Realistic conflict theory (Sherif et al., 1961, Robbers Cave)

competition over resources causes prejudice and hostility

Implicit prejudice

unconscious negative associations, measured by Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Reducing prejudice (Allport, 1954)

equal-status contact, common goals, cooperation, institutional support

Proximity effect

physical closeness increases attraction

Mere exposure effect

repeated exposure increases liking

Similarity principle

we are more attracted to people similar to us

Norm of reciprocity

the social expectation to give back to others when others treat well

Matching effect

partners tend to match in physical attractiveness

Triangular theory of love (Sternberg)

love consists of intimacy, passion, and commitment

Social exchange theory

relationships depend on cost–benefit analysis

Evolutionary perspective on attraction

sex differences in mate preferences explained by reproduction strategies

Prosocial behaviour

voluntary behaviour intended to help others

Altruism

helping without expectation of reward

Empathy–altruism hypothesis (Batson)

helping occurs if we feel empathy for others

Kin selection

evolutionary tendency to help relatives to preserve shared genes

Reciprocal altruism

helping others with expectation of future return

Bystander effect (Darley & Latané, 1970)

people are less likely to help when others are present (diffusion of responsibility, social comparison)

Aggression

behaviour intended to harm another person

Frustration–aggression hypothesis

frustration increases likelihood of aggressive behaviour

Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977)

aggression is learned through observing others (Bobo doll experiment)

Catharsis hypothesis

venting anger reduces aggression (largely unsupported)

Media violence

associated with small but significant increases in aggression

Heider (1958)

attribution theory (internal vs external causes)

Kelley (1973)

covariation model (consistency, distinctiveness, consensus)

Festinger (1957)

cognitive dissonance theory

Bem (1972)

self-perception theory

Asch (1951)

conformity line study

• a bunch of actors in a room pretending to be participants + 1 real participant.

• they are shown 1 line, and then 3 different options for lines. they have to pick which of the 3 lines correspond with the first line they saw

• actors answer incorrectly on purpose

• 75% of the participants conformed to the actors at least once

Milgram (1963)

obedience to authority (shocks)

• student (actor) & teacher (the participant

• a scientist tells the teacher (the participant) that they must observe as the student (an actor hired to play the student) performs certain tasks. every time they get it wrong, they must get shocked

• 62.5% of people continued “shocking” the student up to a lethal dose

Zimbardo (1971)

Stanford Prison Experiment (roles, deindividuation)

• only lasted a couple days before being cancelled due to ethical issues

• divided randomly into separate roles - guard or inmate

Sherif et al. (1961)

Robbers Cave study (realistic conflict theory)

• two summer camp groups of young boys

• they were placed in competition against each other —> not friendly towards each other

• they were given leisurely tasks to do together —> still hostile

• the two groups had to work together towards a common goal —> become more friendly

Tajfel & Turner (1979)

social identity theory - how people define themselves based off of the groups they are in. This happened in steps.

1. they categorized themselves and others into social groups

2. they identify themselves with these social groups to gain a positive self concept

3. they compare their in-group and out-group, favouring their in group

Darley & Latané (1970)

bystander effect

Bandura (1977)

Bobo doll study (aggression modelling)

• Social learning theory

• adults hit bobo doll, then children are left alone with it to see if they learn. The children would copy the aggressive behaviour

impression formation

process of how, with what info and to what extent people make judgements of others

social cognition

social side of mental processes, how people make sense of themselves and others

ultimate attribution error

attributions about the outgroup are more negative, attributions about the ingroup are more positive

Asch & primacy effect

• a study where people are given descriptions of hypothetical people’s traits

• more likely to have the first descriptor stick the most, impact the way we view the person the most

recency effect

when we attach more importance to most recent info about a person, focus more on recent info.

perceptual schema

• how we perceive others, our mental representation or image about their distinctive features of a person, event, etc

• how we organise and interpret information

Higgins et al

• participants are told to memorize words

• then read story about a thrill seeker

• this shaped their schemas, their perception of the thrill seeker

stereotype

• shared beliefs about personal attributes

• personality traits, opinions, behaviours of groups of people

self fulfilling prophecy

people’s expectations of others which lead them to act the way they are expected to. Ex: expect a person to be evil —> they become evil

self-schemas

• mental templates

• based on memory, past experience —> our own beliefs about ourselves

• self-relevant schemas: schematic

• not self-describing (like sports interests, religion etc): aschematic

social comparison theory

• comparing our beliefs, feelings, behaviours with those of others

• compare up or down - up to peer perceived to be better, and vice versa

reflected appraisals principle

we incorporate views of others have of us into our own self concept

Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins 1987)

• actual self - who we believe ourselves to be

• ideal self - our hopes and dreams

• ought self - our perceived duties and obligations

regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1987)

• two self guides (parts of us) are concerned with pursuit of different goals (ideal and ought)

• promotional goals - concerning ideals (more upward)

• prevention goals - goals for obligations (more downward self comparison)

Personal identity

individual identity based in personality traits, idiosyncratic (distinctive) characteristics and interpersonal relations

self-esteem (Rosenberg 1965)

• individual’s sense of self worth

• extent to which individual appreciates of likes themselves

better-than-average effect

tendency to think we’re better than the average peer

sociometer

internal monitor of social acceptance & belonging by others

collective self esteem

the value an individual places on the group their in

LaPiere

Study

• bad attitude towards asian people in 1930s in american

• went to a TON of restaurants with chinese couple in USA

• rejected only once, but 90% of restuaraunts said they wouldn’t let asians eat there

facts surrounding attitudes

• attitude and behavior has low correlation for many

• attitudes influence behavior most when contradicting factors for our attitudes are weak

• attitudes have a greater influence on behaviour when we are aware of them and they are strongly held

• general attitudes best predict general classes of behaviour and specific attitudes predict specific behaviours

• distinction is made between cognitive attitudes (ex smoking) and affective attitudes (emotional consequences of behavior)

Explicit attitudes

consciously formed attitudes, deliberate. easy to self report. Ex: you know your favourite colour

implicit attitudes

not always evident or able to self-report. measured through reaction-time-based indirect measures. ex: doing a study and seeing how you react.

counter-attitudinal behaviour

• when behaviour is inconsistent with attitude

• dissonance only occurs here if we had free will and had an inconsistency

central route to persuasion

when people think carefully about message of a thing and agree with it because arguments are compelling

peripheral route to persuasion

do not scrutinize message but are swayed by things such as pretty privilege, message length, emotional appeal

what impacts obedience (based on milgram stuff)

1. remoteness of victim

2. closeness and legitimacy of the authority figure

3. diffusion responsibility (another person also stepping in?)

4. personal characteristics

5. gender differences (no difference actually)

social norms

shared expectations about how poeple should think, feel and behave

social role

set of norms that characterize how people in a certain role should behave

sherif’s autokinetic effect

• study with an optical illusion in it where a dot appears to be moving

• participants are in a group, discussing how they believe the dot moved. they are also interviewed individually by experimenter.

• we see their opinions become more similar over time after talking to each other

referent informational influence

we are more influenced by people in group we identify with