Social Psychology - Midterm 1

social psychology

study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, behaviours are influenced by their situation

social identity

knowledge of a membership in a social group

value and social significance is attached to group membership

part of an individual’s self-concept

example: national identity

social identity threat

can be internal or external

threat to social group

can increase identification with in-group

example: 9/11

confirmation bias

tendency to seek, interpret, and create information that confirms/verifies already existing bias

example: Saddam Hussein and 9/11

correlational method

assesses strength and direction of relationships between variables

correlational does NOT equal causation

range -1.0 to +1.0

correlational ratings range

-1.0 to +1.0

positive correlations

as one variable increases, so does the other or both decrease together

negative correlation

as one variable increases, the other decreases

directional problem

issue with correlational relationships

don’t know which variable actually causes which

confounds

issue with correlational method

other variables outside of the study can impact the results

3rd variable problem

correlation can appear to be caused by the variable but it’s actually caused by another separate variable

true experiments

independent and dependent variables

manipulation of the independent variable

random assignment of participants to experimental groups

participant variables

variables that characterize pre-existing differences among the participants

random assignment

how participants are assigned to experimental group

equal chance of every participant being assigned to any condition

controls for participant variables, confounds

random sampling

how participants are chosen from the population

every member of the population of interest has an equal chance of being selected for the study

internal validity

is the independent variable actually the reason the dependent variable changed?

random assignment is important for this

external validity

can the findings of the study be generalized to the population, other settings, times, measurements

is the study actually applicable to the wider population?

random sampling is important for this

what makes an experiment great?

if it challenges existing theories → Lepper

incorporates several theories → Zajonc

challenges people’s expectations/intuitions → Milgram

large effect from small manipulation → Loftus

addresses important societal issues → Steele

overjustification theory

Lepper et al., 1973

paradoxical effect of reward on intrinsic motivation

people won’t do things they like anymore is externally motivated

challenges reinforcement theory

social faciliation

Zajonc - the Zajonc solution

several theories are integrated

the presence of others can impair or enhance performance depending on task difficulty

easy task → dominant response = correct → others present = better performance

hard task → dominant response = incorrect → others present = impaired performance

Milgram

obedience experiment - delivering shocks to learner

1961

65% of participants were complete obedient

eyewitness reports

biased

inaccurate

eyewitness experiment

car crash

the verb used significantly changed the memory/perception of crash (the estimated speed of the vehicles)

stereotype threat

the risk of being reduced to the negative stereotype of yourself caused a ‘disruptive state’

negative stereotypes targeting a social identity

how negative stereotypes impact performance

added pressure to disprove a negative stereotype can impact performance negatively

laboratory experiments

controlled environment

participants can be very carefully studied

control for confounds

field experiment

real-world study

people are more likely to just act naturally

less control over environment, etc. → more confounds possible

mundane realism

resemblance/similarity to the real world

how much does the experimental setting reflect the real world setting of interest

experimental realism

how engaging is it to participant is it?

reflect psychological processes

meta-analysis

overall picture of an effect

combines results from several different studies

increase confidence of experiment results / effect (increases reliability and strength)

social categorization

dividing world into ingroup and outgroups

allows for the development of social identity

group membership + value of membership

social identity theory

people favour their ingroups over their outgroups in order to increase self-esteem

want to maintain self-esteem

black sheep exception/effect

tendency to retreat from in group

ingroup punished ‘black sheep’ for acting outside group norms by rejecting them, ostracizing

lower vales of in group = lower self-esteem

social validation

fundamental tendency to seek approval from others to assess the appropriateness of their own actions

follow social norms = higher self-esteem and belonging to group

social media and childhood depression + anxiety

correlational

linked

postive correlation

why social media undermines well-being

highlight reel of people’s lives

upward social comparison

body image

sleep deprivation

chasing likes

FOMO

FOPO

cyberbullying

online predators

self-serving cognitions

defending and maintaining our self-esteem

mechanisms of self-enhancement

take credit for our success but distance ourselves from failures

individualistic cultures

Westernized

USA, Canda, UK

values independence, autonomy, self-reliance

collectivist culture

Eastern

Japan, China, Korea

values interdependence, cooperation, social harmony

basking in reflected glory (BIRG)

be around people who are successful to raise self-esteem

associate with successful people

example → support sports teams more when they’re doing well

cut off reflected failure (CORF)

distance ourselves from people who are not doing well

example → distance ourselves from sports teams when they’re doing bad

self-handicapping

expecting ourselves to fail so sabotaging ourselves in order to have an excuse for poor performance

comparison to others (types)

upward social comparison

downward social comparison

up ward social comparison

comparing to someone who is we think is more successful, etc. than ourselves

can inspire you to work harder or decrease self-esteem; jealousy, inadequacy

downward social comparison

compare yourself to someone you think is less fortunate, successful than yourself

can boost self-esteem, give relief; or cause complacency

self-esteem

emotional (affective) component of self

positive and negative self-evaluations

overall sense of self-worth

culture

beliefs, customs, habits, language shared by people living in the same time and same

cultural perspectives

individualistic

collectivist

impact every aspect of life/culture

contrasting cultural orientation

acculturation

adapting/changing to the culture around you

defensive high self-esteem

high explicit self-esteem

low implicit self-esteem

high on narcissism scales

narcissists, bullies

explicit self-esteem

conscious awareness of self and value

can fake it/pretend

implicit self-esteem

unconscious evaluation of self-worth and value

cannot fake it

secure self-esteem

high explicit

high implicit

don’t brag about self

know they’re doing well

narcissistic personality disorder

grandiose sense of self-importance

need for admiration

lack of empathy

begins in early adulthood

must have 5 or more of the criteria

defensive high self-esteem

self-presentation

how we present ourselves

shows how we feel about ourselves

how we control the impressions we make on others

‘impression management’

some people self-present more than others

self-monitoring

chronic concern for one’s image

adjust actions to fit situations

increases through adolescence and peaks in young adults (undergrad age)

high self-monitoring → social chameleon, changes their personality, etc. based on who they’re around

self-monitoring decreases over time as you age

high self-monitors

inconsistent across situations

social chameleons

good at changing their behaviour to fit who is around them

excellent dinner guests

high social intelligence

pick up social cues quickly

no idea where you stand with them

e.g. lawyers, politicians

low self-monitors

decide how to act just based on themselves

don’t change that much across situations

can offend others accidentally

always know where you stand with them

no social filter

goals of self-presentation

ingratiation - being seen as likeable

self-promotion - be seen as competent

intimidation - be seen as powerful

how to be seen as more likeable - ingratiation

express liking for others

create similarity

make ourselves more physically attractive

project modesty

expressing liking

verbal flattery - compliments

nonverbal behaviours - smiling, nodding, mimicking behaviours

way to become more likeable

chameleon effect

unconsciously mimicking others behaviours

creating similarity

way to become more likeable

adopt similar interests, fashion sense, music taste, expressions/words uses

want to be more like the people that we like

make ourselves more physically attractive

way to become more likeable

‘pretty privilege’

beautiful people receive more benefits

project modesty

way to become more likeable

women are more likely to do this than men → why women are liked more than men in general

smiling, complimenting others, agreeing with others, presenting themselves modestly

social perception

general process of how people perceive one another, how people come to understand one anothers

mature features

perceived as stronger, more dominant, competent

baby-faced features

perceived as warm, kind, naïve, weak, honest, submissive

‘scripts’ of social perception

preset expectations about certain types of situations

help us understand others’ verbal and nonverbal behaviours

breaking scripts tells us alot about people

behavioural evidence of social perception

facial expressions

gestures

body language/posture

eye gaze

ease of control of different ways of communication

words - cannot be trusted, controllable

face - controllable

body - more revealing than face but still somewhat controllable

voice pitch - most revealing cue; lying = higher pitch

pathological liars

incessantly like to get their way and with little awareness

antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder lie more often

little regard for others’ emotions

manipulative

weak grip on reality, believe their own lies

con artists

plan strategically

rely on social psychology

exploit victim’s vulnerabilities

‘confidence artist’

deceives others by gaining their trust, then exploiting it for financial, social, psychological gain

high social intelligence

strong observational skills

read social cues well

impression management

social chameleons

have cognitive empathy (understanding) but lack affective empathy (feeling)

stages of classic con

1. set up - building trust and rapport

2. the play - introduce opportunity or problem

3. the convincer - give fake proof or social evidence

4. the put-up - victim commits money and resources

5. the exit - disappearing

types of con artists

opportunistic scammer

long con artist

corporate con artist

romance con artist

opportunistic con artist

short term

low investment

telephone, internet, email scams

long con artist

long term

builds relationship over months or years

corporate con artist

within organizations

e.g. Ponzi schemes

romance con artist

exploit intimacy needs of victim (mark)

psychology of long con

study their victims

mirror victim’s personality traits

create shared social identity

escalate commitment over time

create emotional dependency and isolation

many victims refuse to testify against con artist

attribution bias

describes the process of how we make attributions

two types - personal and situational

personal attribution

personal

person’s fault

attribute to individual

e.g. running into a table and blaming yourself being clumsy

more common in individualistic society

situational attribution

not person’s fault

e.g. running into a table and blaming the table (it shouldn’t have been there)

more common in collectivist society

fundamental attribution error

overestimate role of personal factors

overlook the impact of situations

actor-observer effect

tendency to make personal attributions for others but situational attributions for ourselves

belief in a just world

individuals get what they deserve

can lead to victim blaming

confirmation bias

tendency to seek information that confirms our already existing bias

self-fulfilling prophecy

dynamic process between individuals

expectations of someone lead to them behaving in that way (confirming the expectation)

imposing stereotypes → individual will eventually fulfill those stereotypes/expectations

cognitive heuristics

information processing rules of thumb

allow us to think in quick and easy ways but often lead to errors

availability heuristics

the likelihood an event will happen based on how easily it comes to mind

problems: misperception of risk, things that are extremely rare are talked about alot when they do happen

e.g. plane crashes, shark attacks

representativeness heuristic

likelihood the object belongs in a category based on how similar it is to other objects already in the category

parasocial relationships

one-sided bonds that individuals form with celebrities, fictional characters, AI companions, etc.

feel intimate and personal

illusion of reciprocity and illusion of intimacy

positive effects of parasocial relationships

offer stability and support

belonging

reduce stress

emotional comfort

inspiration and motivation

can explore identity safely

can lead to the development of real-life connections with people in similar communities

negative effects of parasocial relationships

can replace real-life social interactions

emotional dependency

financial exploitation by media figure

boundary issues

entitlement towards media figure

parasocial marketing

creates an illusion of intimacy

builds a sense of community

powerful form of persuasion

highly personal media

feeling of personally knowing the celebrity

builds brand loyalty and increases sales

intimacy

emotional self-disclosure

perceived understanding and validation

consistent responsiveness

trust and psychological safety

sense of closeness and attachment

subjective

beauty in individualistic culture

viewed as: stronger

happier

more socially gifted

more confident

more successful

beauty in collectivist culture

associated with: generosity

caring

trustworthiness

what-is-beautiful-is-good stereotype

beautiful people possess more desirable characteristics

beauty associated with what the culture values

2 step process of self-fulfilling prophecy

1. perceiver’s expectations - impact and determine how the interaction will play out

2. perceiver’s behaviour towards the target

3. target’s behaviour toward the perceiver

circle, repeating cycle

is beauty subjective?

evidence for subjective:

differs across culturally (ideal body types, etc.)

standards change ALOT over time

different features are more important in different countries, races, cultures