social psychology

prejudice

an unjustifiable attitude toward a group and its members

3 components of prejudice

1. cognitive

2. affective

3. behavior

cognitive prejudice

stereotypes

affective prejudice

negative feelings

behavior prejudice

discrimination

what are stereotypes

unchanged, oversimplified, and usually distorted belief about a group of people

3 levels of stereotypes

1. public

2. private

3. implicit

public stereotypes

what we say to others about a group

private stereotypes

what we consciously think about a group, but do not say to others

implicit

unconscious mental associations guiding our judgements and actions without our conscious awareness

in-group “us”

people with whom one shares a common identity

out-group “them”

those perceived as different or apart from us

in-group bias

the tendency to favor one’s own group, usually at the expense of the other group

ethnocentrism

belief that one’s own culture or ethnic group is superior to them

discrimination

unfair treatment of individuals because they are members of a particular group - these victims may see themselves as inferior

jane elliot’s famous study on discrimation

• wanted to show her third graders what discrimination was like

• told them blue eyed people are superior to brown-eyed people

• gave them collars so people could see what eye color they had from a distance

• kids immediately started discriminating

causes of prejudices

1. exaggerating differences

2. justifying economic status

3. just-world bias

4. social learning

5. victimization

6. scapegoat theory

exaggerating differences

people exaggerate how different others are from themselves

justifying economic status

people of higher socioeconomic status tend to justify it by assuming those of lower economic status are inferior to them

just-world bias

the belief that people deserve what they get

social learning

children will imitate their parents’ attitudes and parents will reinforce these attitudes

victimization

victims of prejudice try to gain a sense of power and pride by putting down another group that is even worse off than them

scapegoat theory

individual or group is blamed for a national/global problem

two major theories accounting for prejudice

1. prejudice and intergroup hostility increase increase when different groups are competing for scarce resources

   1. jobs, college

2. people are prejudiced against groups that are perceived as threatening important in-group norms and values

reducing prejudice

initially, researchers thought simple contact between conflicting groups would reduce prejudice (contact theory)

sherif’s robber cave study

• took 11-12 year old boys at a camp and divided them into two groups

  • each group took on characteristics of distinct social groups

• had them compete against each other

  • created hostility, stereotypes, and discrimination

• then, sherif made the groups work together and cooperate to achieve a common goal

  • the rivalry then diminished and the boys became friends

jigsaw classroom

• developed by eliot aronson

• designed to reduce prejudice and raise the self-esteem of children

• place them in a small, desegregated groups and make each child dependent on the other children in the group to learn the course material and do well in the class.

social influence

how behavior is influenced by the social environment and the presence of other people

conformity

• adopting attitudes or behaviors of others because of pressure to do so

• this pressure can be real or imagined

• people bring their attitudes or behaviors in like what that of a group

social norms

standards of how to act we share with our social groups

two categories of social norms

1. explicit norms

2. implicit norms

explicit norms

spoken or written rules

• school dress code, traffic laws

implicit norms

unspoken/unwritten rules

• how to dress so you can fit in

social norms can be good or bad

• good - not taking during a movie, bathing regularly

• bad - smoking, binge drinking

solomon asch’s experiment on conformity

wanted to see if people would conform even when they would know the answer was wrong

• brought in six subjects

• all but one in the group was a confederate

• seating was rigged so true subject would sit near the end

• asked to rate which line matched a “standard line”

• confederates picked the wrong answer 12/18 times

• would the subject conform and also pick the wrong answer?

67% of participants conformed at least once

25% of participants conformed almost every time

informative social influence

our desire to be correct

normative social influence

our desire to gain social acceptance and approval

factors that increase conformity

• group has three or more people

• the person is impressed by the status of the group

• person feels incompetent or insecure

• person’s culture encourages conformity

  • collectivist culture more likely to conform

factors that decrease conformity

• when we have someone else give a different opinion, conformity goes down

• if one person disagrees, even if it is wrong, you are more likely to express your nonconforming

group behavior terms

• social facilitation

• social loafing

• risky shift

• deindividuation

• groupthink

• social dilemma/social trap

• self-fulfilling prophecy

• group polarization

social facilitation

• improved performance of tasks in the presence of others

• occurs with simple or well-learned tasks

• tasks that are difficult or not well learned, the presence of other people hinder performance

social loafing

• tendency to expend less effort (slack off) on a task when it is a group effort

• the larger the group, the lower each individuals output

risky shift

tendency for people to take greater risks as a part of a group than they would on their own

deindividuation

• loss of self-awareness and identity when in a group

• everyone becomes one of the group - “mob mentality”

groupthink

• group members try to maintain harmony and unanimity when in a group

• will make decisions to maintain that harmony, even if it is a bad decision

social dilemma/social trap

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

• ex. prisoners dilemma

self-fulfilling prophecy

• when our beliefs and expectations create reality

• if a teacher believes a student is a genius, they might work that student harder so that the student’s grade actually increases

group polarization

• the strengthening of a group’s prevailing attitude through discussion within the group

• after debate, we are more firmly entrenched in our beliefs

types of leadership

1. authoritarian

2. democratic

3. laissez-faire

authoritarian

absolute control over all decisions (a dictator)

democratic

encourage group members to express and discuss their ideas - build a consensus

laissez-faire

lets the group make decisions, whether they are right or wrong

persuasion techniques

1. central route of persuasion

2. peripheral route of persuasion

centeral route of persuasion

speaker uses facts, figures, and other information to enable listeners to carefully process the information and think about their opinions

peripheral route of persuasion

superficial information is used to distract the audience to win favorable approval of the product, and to increase sales (using supermodels and popular athletes to sell a product)

person perception

the way in which people perceive one another

primacy effect

tendency to make an opinion on another person based on a first impression

recency effect

when people change their opinions on people based on recent interactions

prior information effects

mental representations of people based on what we have been told can impact our interpretation of them

social comparison

person perception that occurs when people evaluate themselves based on comparisons to other members of society or social circles.

• social comparison can be upward or downward (relative deprivation)

attribution theory

we tend to attribute peoples behavior to one of two things

• situation

• disposition

weiners attribution theory

when people attribute their behavior, they do it based on two major things

• locus

  • internal vs. external

• stability

  • unstable vs stable

explanatory style

how people explain good and bad events in their lives and in the lives of others

• optimistic or pessimistic (half full/half empty)

fundamental attribution error

• explains how we view OTHERS behavior

• tendency for us to give too much weight to someones personality and not their situation

• people tend to blame or credit the person more than the situation

• often occurs in individualistic cultures

just-world bias

• we believe that life is fair and that people get what they deserve

• we don’t like to think that bad things can happen to good people

• this leads to blaming the victim

  • if something bad happened it must have been their fault

actor-observer bias

• when we judge our behavior, we attribute it to the situation

• when we judge someone else’s behavior, we attribute it to their personality

self-serving bias

• when something goes right, we give ourselves credit

• when something goes wrong, we blame the situation not ourselves

modesty bias (self effacing bias)

• when something goes right, we give credit to the situation

• when something goes wrong, we blame ourselves

attitude

our beliefs and feelings about objects, people, and events that lead people to believe in certain ways

3 components of attitude

1. cognitive - thoughts abt topic

2. affecting - feelings abt topic

3. behavior - actions abt topic

conditioning

children are reinforced for acting and thinking in ways that are consistent with their parents attitudes

observational learning

we observe others and adopt their way of acting

cognitive evaluations

evaluate the evidence and form a belief based on that

cognitive anchors

• start to form these as we get older

• strong beliefs that shape the way we interpret events and see the world

behave in accordance with attitudes when…

1. attitudes are extreme or frequently expressed

2. attitudes have been formed through direct experience

3. you are very knowledgeable about the subject

4. you have a vested interest in the subject

5. you anticipate a favorable outcome or response from someone for doing so

foot in the door phenomenon

the tendency for people who at first have agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request

door in the face phenomenon

begin with a very large request that will be rejected, then follow up with a more modest request

role-playing

when being given a role, we take on that role and can change our attitudes accordingly

zimbardos prison study

• stanford

• zimbardo had college students volunteer to become a part of a “fake prison” held in the basement of the psychology building

• students were given either the role of prisoner or prison guard

• students immediately took on their roles

• the guards were rule, prisoners were submissive

• study ended dafter 6 days when guards became too cruel

belief perseverance

when a belief persists even if evidence suggests it is not accurate

cognitive dissonance

• first thought of by leon festinger

• the idea that we feel tension when our actions do not match our attitudes

• if we do not have enough external justification for actions that go against our attitudes, we feel cognitive dissonance

obedience

• compliance of a pesonn is due to perceived authority of the asker

• the request is perceived as a command

milrams study

• teacher and learner

• learner has heart problem

• teacher goes 15-450 volts

• keeps going even after hearing screams and pleads to stop

results of milgram study

• 26/40 of the subjects went all the way to 450 volts, even those who protested'

• those who did stop, not one stopped before the 300 volt level

conditions that decrease obedience

• buffers are lessened or removed

• experimenter/authority figure leaves the room and spoke via telephone

• act as your own authority figure

• when others defy, you are more likley too

aggression

any physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt or destroy

frustration-aggression theory

• frustration increases the probability of an aggressive response

• the closer you are to the goal, the more likely the aggression

• aggression increases when frustration is unexpected

causes of agression

1. biological/evolutionary

2. cognitave

3. behavioral

4. sociocultural

biological/evolutionary aggression

aggression caused by genes

cognitive aggression

aggression can occur based on our interpretation of other people’s behavior

behavioral aggression

aggressive behavior is rewarded so people learn to behave aggressively

• violent media/video games can lessen peoples inhibitions against violence

sociocultural aggression

some cultures encourage independence and competition, which in turn, increases aggression.