Social Psychology Exam 4

propinquity

how clsoe in physical proximity to another person

propinquity effect

the more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to become our freinds

mere exposure effect

the more you see something the more you like it

Dorm Study

researchers went door-to-door and asked students to identify their friends

results- 65% of friends lived in the same building

41% of the next -door neighbors indicated they were close friends

social allergy effect

people who annoy you may annoy you even more later

similarity

birds of feather flock together

(more likely to last then complemnetarity)

complementarity

opposites attract

the matching hypothesis

people tend to pair up with others who are equally attractive

occurs among lovers, but among friemds

reciprocal liking

we like those who like us

the chameleon effect

ps like Cs who were told to subtly mimic their behavior

physical attractivness

are assumed to be superior to others on many tirals

happiness, sexual warmth, popularity, intelligence, success\`

Blind Date Study

Ps filled out questionnaires and then were matched up on blind dates

what determined whether they wanted a second date

how physically attractive their date was?

ostracism

being excluded, rejected and ignored by others

Cyberball Study

Ps asked to toss a virual ball back and forth to other players

in 1 condition, the P gets the ball 1/3 of the time

in the other condition, ps intiially get the ball , but then not again

results: being rejected leads to lower self-esteem issues, IQ scores, lowered self-regulation, & increased conformity to others

rejection sensivity

a tendency to expect rejection from others and to become hypersensitive to possible rejection

can set up a vicious cycle

behavioral effects of rejection

repeated experinces of rejection can create aggressive tendencies

social exclusion and school violence

what leads to social rejection

aggressive, withdrawn, and deviant children

passionate love

having strong feelings of longing, desire , and excitement towards a special person

companionate (affectionate) love

calmer and more serene

the intimacy and affection we feel when we care deeply for a person

evolutionary psychology

explain social behavior in terms of genetic factors that evolved over time according to the principles of natural selection

women’s goal in evolutionary theory

raise offspring

attracted by men’s resources

men’s goal in evolutionary theory

maximize number of offspring

attracted by women’s appearance

attachment styles

the expectations people develop about relationships

based on the relationship they had in their primary caregiver when they were infants

secure attachment style

good at close relationships

trust their partners, share their feelings, provide support

relationships tend to be stronger, more satisfying, and more intimate

avoidant attachment style

don’t want relationships to become too close

view partners as unavailable, unreliable, and uncaring

relationships marked by more distance lower commitment and lower enjoymenta

anxious-ambivalent attachment style

want to merge to cling but worry then relationships partners will abandon them

tend to see their partners as unreliable and reluctant to commit

social exchange in long term relationships

stability in relationships is determined by rewards, cost comparison level- think of previous relationship

comparison level of alternatives- the other fish in the sea

investment in long term relationships

anything people have put into a relationship that will be lost if they leave it

greater investments=less likely to leave relationships

equity thoery

equitable relationships are the happiest and most stable

exhange in relationships

based on reciprocity and fairness

you do something nice for me, I will do something nice for you

communal relationship

based on mutual love and understanding

people do things for each other without expecting to be repaid

playing hard to get study

predicted that ps would prefer hard to get women-wrong

then ran updated dating study

male ps told they had been matched with 5 females

IV- received 5 date selection forms

didn’t like all her opinions equally (uniformly hard-to-get)

liked all her options equally (uniformly easy-to-get)

like p more than the rest (selectively hard-to-get)

received no date form from 2 others (control group)

DV- ratings of females (who do they choose)

male ps liked the selectively hard to get female the most

why?- makes him feel special, likes you the most, all of positive characteristics of both the hard to get and the easy to get females

easy to get female

pros- friendly, warm

cons- too easy, embarassing

hard to get female

pros- popular selective

cons- unfriendly, cold, rigids

selective female

pros-friendly warm, popular selective

cons-

prosocial behavior

any act performed with the goal of benefiting another person

altruism

the desire to help another person even if it involves a cost to the helper

evolutionary theory

uses principles of evolution and natural selection to understand human social behavior

genes that further survival and increase the probability of producing offspring likely to be passed on

kin selection

helping can be costly

but you can also preserve your genes by helping those wo share your genes to survive

reciprocal altruism

why would you help someone not related to you?

remember norm of reciprocity

increases the likelihood that person will help you when you need it

social exchange theory

helping can be rewarding in a number of ways

helping can also be costly

increases the likelihood that someone will help us in return

by helping we can gain social approval form others

cost- could entail physical danger, embarrassment, or simply take too much time

helping decreases when costs are high

people help when benefits outweigh the costs

altruistic helping

helper expects nothing in return for offering help

helpers goals is to increase another’s welfare

empathy-altruism hypothesis

empathy motivates people to reduce other’s distresse

egoistic helping

helper wants something in return for helping

helper’s goals is to increase own welfare

or to relive their own distress

the carol study

ps learn that a student in their class has been in a car accident

IV1: empathy= high or low

IV2: cost= high or low

DV: asked if they’ll share notes with her

Results: high empathy ps will be more willing to help, whether they see her or not, low empathy will help if they see her in class

5 steps to helping

notice something is happening

interpret the meaning of the event

take responsibility for providing help

know how to help

provide help

kitty genovese

kitty was attacked as she walked home

according to reports, 38 witnesses failed to call police

seminary study

seminary students were asked to give a lecture across campus

IV1: half were in a hurry, half were not

IV2: topic of lecture

DV: who notices potential emergency?

Results: Ps who were not in a hurry were most likely to notice and help, topic did not matter

smoke study

Ps fill out a questionnaire in a waiting room

smoke starts to fill the room

IV: 3 different conditions

alone, 2 passive confederates, 3 naive bystanders

DV: who reports the smoke?

Results: alone Ps most likely to report the smoke

2 passive didn’t

3 naive bystanders reported sometimes

pluralistic ignorance

assuming that nothing is wrong because no one else looks concerned

seizure study

ps take part in a group discussion over an intercom ssytem

during the session another P has a seizure

IV: group of 2,3 or 6 Ps, only 1 real P

DV: who helps?

Results: 1 condition most likely to help

diffusion of responsibility

one’s sense of personal responsibility to help decrease as the number of bystanders increases

nurses rule study

on their way to the lab, Ps pass a workman (C) standing on the ladder

IV1: in the lab, half of PS work with a partner (a passive C) on a task, the rest work alone

then PS hear the ladder fall, a thud, and the man groan in pain

IV2: Participants (nurses or not)

DV: who helps?

Results: the nurses helped, regardless of condition, non-nurses were more likely to help if they worked alone

group

2+ people who interact and are interdependent with each other

Triplett (1898) social facilitation

measured how fast children wound up a fishing reel when alone vs. with another person

children wound faster when in the presence of someone else

later research showed that sometimes the presence of improves performance and sometime hinders it

arousal and the dominant response

the presence of others increases physiological arousal ie our bodies become more energized

when arousal exists

it is easier to do something that simple

it is harder to do something complex or learn something new

theory 1 of why the presence of others causes arousal

other people cause us to become particularly alert and vigilant

theory 2 of why the presence of others causes arousal

when other people can see how you are doing, you feel like they are evaluating you

theory 3 of why the presence of others causes arousal

they distract us from the task at hand

group behavior

how do you think people perform in groups

early studies looked at people’s performance on task when they worked alone vs. in a group

tug a war- pulls harder in a group

cheerleader- cheers louder alone

swimmer- swims faster alone

weakest line goes faster in a group

social loafing

people do worse on simple tasks when they are in the presence of others and the individual performance cannot be evaluated

but they also do better on complex tasks

tend to be more relaxed in groups

decrease social loafing

people believe their own performance can be identified

the task and the groups are personally meaningful

people believe their own efforts are important for success

social facilitation and social loafing

arousal enhances performance on simple tasks but impairs performance on complex tasks

becoming relaxed impairs performance on simple tasks but improves performance on complex tasks

deindividuation

the loss of a person’s sense of individuality and the reduction of normal constraints against deviant behavior

accountability cues

when an individual can’t be easily identified

e.g large crowd, wearing mask or hood online

affectional cues

cues that focus a person’s attention away from the self

social roles

shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave in that group

potential costs of social roles

if enmeshed in a role, individual identities and personalities can get lost

stanford prison study

guards- abusive verbally harassed humiliated prisoners

prisoners- passive helpless withdrawn

researchers had to end experiment after only 6 days

students quickly assumed their roles

group polarization

early research shows that groups made riskier decisions than individuals

group discussion tends to enhance or exaggerate the initial leanings of the group- risky shift

persuasive arguments interpretation

the greater number and persuasiveness of the arguments, the more extreme attitudes become

some arguments provide new info to group member hearing them for the first time

social comparison interpretation

through social comparison, group members learn the group members’

by adopting a more extreme attitude, people can distinguish themselves in a group-approved manner

group think

a kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner

mos likely to occur- highly cohesive, isolated form contrary opinions, ruled by a directive leader who makes his or her wishes known

avoid group think

a wise leader can take several steps to avoid group think

remain impartial

seek outside opinions

create subgroups

seek anonymous opinions

social dilemmas

a conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual, if chosen by most people, will have a harmful effect on everyone

sterotypes

out thoughts and beliefs about an individual upon his or her group membership

prejudice

our attitudes and feelings about an individual based upon his or her group membership

discrimination

our behavior toward on individual based upon his or her group memberships

minimal group paradigm

divide individuals into 2 arbitrary groups

have them allocate rewards

mere act of categorization causes ingroup bias and preferential treatment

cognitive efficiency

there’s more info in our social environment than we can process (need to simplify)

maintain high self-esteem

derive some sense of self from group memberships

compare ingroup to outgroup

feel good about IG/self by putting down OG

consequences of categorization

information is gained (stereotype) and lost (individual info)

outgroup homogeneity

they’re all the same

social cognition- think about others

ambigious show study

method: ps watched video of 2 males, discussion becomes heated and 1 guy shoves the other (ambigiously)

IV: varied race of individuals in video (WW, WB, BW, BB)

DV: Ps job was to rate behavior of shover

Results: Ps rated behavior as most severe when performed by B person

BW>BB>WB>WW

black shover: he’s violent

white shover: he’s playing around

B and W Children Study

Ps: black and white 6th grader

Ps saw pictures and heard descriptions of interactions common in school

IV: varied race of actors seen in pictures

DV: Ps rated 2 kids in picture

Results: B kid’s behaviors were rated as more mean/threatening than those of W kid

by both W and B PS

Task Performance Study

how stereotypes influence task performance

Ps did 2 tasks at same time


1. impression formation task IV: stereotype label provided or not
2. indonesia tape: full of acts

DV: trait recall task, multiple choice questionnaire on Indonesia

Results: if stereotypes simplify info processing then performance on a concurrent task should be improved

stereotype label provided

recalled more personality treats

stereotype-consistent> neutral

correctly answered a greater number of test question-steroetype label provided

stereotype use may be beneficial

stereotypes simplify judgements and preserve cognitive resources

Correll’s Shooter Bias Study

Ps played a game in which the goal was to shoot armed targets and not shoot unarmed targets

IV1: target race- black or white

IV2: object target was holding- weapon or non-weapon

DV: number of errors made

Result: unarmed target errors- black, armed target errors- white

explicit measure

person is aware that their thoughts, feelings - prejudice

etc. about group are assessed

person has control over response

implicit measure

person is not aware that their feelings, thoughtsetc. are being accessed

automatic- person has little control over response

Checklist Measure Study

designed a study to assess content of people’s stereotypes

presented Ps with 10 groups (eg german jes)

asked Ps to select from a list of traits that were most characterisitc of the gorups

found most trait agreement for blacks (supersititous, lazy muscial etc)

followed by germans (scientific industrious etc.)

followed by jews (shrewd, mercenary, industrious etc.)

implicit bias

biases hidden from oneself

IAT

measures speed of positive and negative reactions to target group

most people have automatic preference for white vs black

_performance does predict discriminatory behavior

automatic process

occurs outside of conscious awareness

not cognitively demanding

can perform simultaneous tasks

if you repeat soemthign a lot it may become automatic

controlled process

requires conscious thoughts

takes up cognitive resources

can typically only do one thing at a time

devine background

examined the relation between automatic and controlled processes in prejudice

suggest there’s a difference between knowing about a stereotype (cultural belief) and endorsing it (personal belief)

stereotype from in early childhood

personal beliefs are formed much later

stereotypes have longer history of activation, so more accessible

devine hypothesis

high and low prejudice individuals are equally knowledgable of B cultural stereotypes

stereotypes are automatically activated in presence of blacks

high and low prejudice individuals differ in their personal beliefs about Bs

non-prejudiced responses require intentional inhibition of activated stereotype/control

Devine study 1

Ps level of prejudice was assessed before hand

Ps then listed the societal stereotypes of African Americans

Results showed that both high and low prejudice PS were equally aware of the societal stereotypes of AAs

devine study 2

method: 1/2 ps primed with B stereo (80% stereo, 20% neutral)

ps then read about donald who performed a number of ambiguous behaviors

ps then rated donald (whose race was never mentioned)

results: when stereotype was primed (80% conditional) donad was rated as more hostile

automatic activation of racial stereotype of ambiguous behaviors

this occured for both high and low prejudice individuals

devine study 3

Ps asked to anonymously list their personal thoughts about AAs

high prejudice Ps listed more negative thoughts

low prejudice Ps listed more positive then negative

devine discussion

stereotypes may be automatically activated regardless of prejudice level

stereotype change is possible