Psych Unit 2

Social Influence

ways in which people are affected by the real, imagined, and implied pressures of others

Automatic Social Influence

we are vulnerable to subtle, reflexive, automatic influences (social yawn, laughter, rubbernecking)

Chameleon Effect

tendency to mimic the motor behavior of interaction partners

Conformity

tendency to change our perception, opinions, or behaviors in ways consistent with group norms

Normative Influence

influence stemming from fear of negative social consequences (exclusion, glances) of deviance

Informational Influence

influence that stems from the belief that others are correct in their judgements

Public Compliance

conforming to norm even though you don’t agree with it (unlikely to change attitude)

Private Acceptance

when a person changes their attitude and beliefs to match others

Compliance

agreeing to a request (norm) even though you don’t want to or don’t think it is right

Acceptance

agreeing to a request (norm) because you want to or think it is the right thing to do

Speed (compliance strat)

faster-than-avg speech is perceived as more persuasive

Mindlessness (compliance strat)

catching people off guard makes them more likely to comply (**can also make us less compliant**)

Authority

we’re more willing to comply with someone who’s a legitimate expert (9/10 dentists recommend..)

Scarcity

things that are hard to get are more attractive. if you want someone to comply, make the request time sensitive (sale ends in __:__)

Liking

we tend to comply to requests of people we know + like (celebs in commericals)

Commitment

once we’ve taken a position, we’re more likely to comply with anything consistent with that position

Reciprocity

we feel obligated to comply with people who have done us a favor

Consensus

we are more willing to comply if we know that a lot of other people have already done so (“everyone’s doing it”)

Sequential Request Tactics

making use of multiple requests to induce compliance

Foot In the Door

ask for something small, then something big

Lowballing

getting a person to agree to a good deal, then alter the deal in your favor

Door in the Face

preface the real request with one that is so large it is rejected (can i get a tattoo? —> can i get a piercing?)

That’s Not All

begin with an inflated request, then decreases its apparent size by offering a discount bonus

SRT Commitment

Foot in Door & Lowballing

SRT Reciprocity

Door in Face, That’s Not All

Obedience

yielding to a direct request from a person in a position of authority

Persuasion

trying to change someone’s mind by changing their attitude

Attitudes

evaluations of social stimuli that range from pos to neg

Arguments

message used to attempt to persuade someone

Central Route

persuasion via info that is relevant (or central) to the thing being endorsed in an argument

Peripheral Route

persuasion via info that is irrelevant (peripheral) to the thing being endorsed in argument

Motivation

people attend to arguments when they are more relevant to their interests / goals

Ability

motivation doesn’t ensure you will attend to central cues (distractions can orient you toward peripheral cues)

Yale Attitude Change Approach

3 components define the persuasiveness of a message : “who says what to whom”

Credibility

degree to which a messenger is perceived as trustworthy

Actual Expertise

using a strong argument to persuade via central route

Perceived Expertise

using peripheral cues to make you appear more credible

What is Beautiful is Good Effect (aka pretty privelege)

tendency to evaluate attractive individuals more pos in different domains

Likability

we are more easily persuaded by people we like

Overt Message

message obviously intended to persuade (“you should like this car”)

Covert Message

message not obviously intended to persuade (“wow this car is incredible”)

Emotional Messages

messages that evoke pos emotions are more persuasive

Intelligence

people with lower intelligence are more easily persuaded - tend to focus on peripheral cues.

Age

18-25 yr olds are particularly susceptible to persuasion

Self Esteem

high self esteem: hard to persuade. very low self esteem: hard to persuade, low-mod self esteem: easiest to persuade

Group

at least 2 people who share at least one: direct interactions over time, joint membership in category, common goals

Dyad

2 individuals, usually interconnected + intimate (married couple)

Small Group

2-12 members, high interconnected/ intimate (friend group)

Medium Group

13-50 members, mild interconnection/ intimacy (small class)

Large Group

50+ members, low interconnection/intimacy (large class)

Entitativity

degree to which a collection of people feels like a cohesive group

Aggregates

people who happen to be same place same time. not technically a group. little to no entitativity (everyone at a gym)

Social Categories

Large groups that share one trait, low entitativity (all students at GT)

Collectives

people who share a common goal, mod entitativity/influence (all republicans at GT)

Task Groups

groups that work toward a specific goal, mod-high entitativity/ influence (team project group)

Intimacy Groups

groups based on social intimacy, high entitativity/influence

Group Bonding

groups bond by sharinng. intimacy groups have communal sharing, others have reciprocity

Group Identity

similarity leads to group bonding as well: sharing traits, style, behavior, etc

Minimal Group Paradigm

creating groups using least amount of distinction or similarity possible

In Group Favoritism

tendency to show favor to members in your group

Out Group Bias

tendency to show bias against people who belong to other groups

Roles

socially defined patterns of behavior expected of a person

Norms

rules for how groups shared think + behave

Collective Processes

group membership affects behavior (social facilitation, social loafing, deindividuation)

Social Facilitation

presence of others enhances performance on easy tasks, and impairs performance on difficult tasks

Social Loafing

putting less effort in to get a task done in a group vs alone

Sucker Effect

outcomes + efforts not valued = lower effort : “Why” for social loafing

Social Compensation

outcomes + effort are valued= more efforts to compensate social loafing

Deindividuation

loss of a sense of individuality, reduces constraints against deviant behavior

Self Awareness Theory

behavior is more influenced by attitudes, values, and goals when attention is focused on self (less cheating when test is infront of mirror)

Group Polarization

groups made riskier decisions than individuals (“risky shift”)

Groupthink

groups come to flawed conclusions due to valuing group harmony over full analysis of a problem

Informational Influence

you conform with another person because you think they know more than you

Mindguarding

keeping new/ dissenting information away from group out of fear of dissent