Untitled Flashcards Set

Intimidation: Forcing behaviour (2A)

Intimidation: Changing somebody’s belief, attitude, or behaviour through dominance, threats, social status, or harm to the target itself

• Intimation primarily targets hevaibours, often leading to actions inconsistent with a person’s beliefs/ attitudes.

• Intimidation is often direct: the target knows they are being influenced to act

• But it can be indirect: appeals to social rols can manipulate behaviour without the target recognising it as influence. 

Direct intimidation: Milgram

Milgram Obedience Experiments: a set of experiments in which a researcher repeatedly tells participants to harm another participant (who is an actor)

• Participants come into the lab and are assigned to be “teachers” who will punish other participants (“learners”) with electric shocks whenever they get a memory question wrong

• They are instructed by the “experimenter” to keep increasing to school to extremely dangerous levels every time the learner answers incorrectly. The learner eventually complains that the shocks are seriously hurting them, then stops reposnding 

Before starting the study, Milgram ran a large-scale survey of other social psychology researchers, asking them to predict the results 

65% of people administered what they thought is a lethal shock because the experimenter told them so

Milgram ran a variety of conditions to test if compliance rates go up or down:

•  Teacher’s choice: The teacher can choose any voltage they want (2.5% go to max)

•  Conflict: The learner says keep going, but the Experimenter says stop (100%)

•  No Feedback: the Learner never cries out in pain (65%)

•  Distant Researcher: The Experimenter is not in the room and communicates remotely (38%)

•  Touch: the Teacher has to physically push the Learner’s hand onto a shock plate (30%)

•  Two Experimenters: one says keep going while the other one says stop (20%)

•  Known Learner: the Learner is somebody the Teacher knows, like a friend or colleague that was instructed to act for the study (15%)

•  Two Teachers: a second Teacher (an actor) says they want to stop (10%)

These conditions reveal reasons for compliance 

• Authroity: the experimenter is an authority figure tells them to go on

• Blame: the experimetner claims that he will take the responsibility

• Gradual increase: the level of harm is increased little by little spo that people can justify” Just one more thing 

• Distance: the lower the physical distance btween teach and learner, the lower the compliance 

Today, changes in research ethics make it imporssivle to replicate milgram

Soome very limited scope replications:

• Nurse study: real life nurses were called by a experimenter pretending to be a doctor and asked to administer a lethal dose of (fake) medicatio that was planted in their offices 95% of all nurse did as insturccted

• 2009 replication: by limiting to the shocks only to below 150v, a 2009 study showed that 70% of participants would keep going beyond 1500v

But also:

•  A 2017 re-analysis of the post-experiment interview data showed that most people who obeyed did not believe that they were administering real shocks.

•  Publication selectivity: Milgram changed how many Teacher protests are required to count as “not obeying” to make women seem more similar to men.

While these issues are serious, most social psychologists accept that the rates of obedience are higher than we would intuitively believe and accept the broad conclusions of the study

Indirect intimidation

Social role: a set of expectations about what kinds of behaviours are expected ad permissible given a specific role in a social gorup or society 

• E.g., police officers are allowed to carry weapons and exercise aggression under specific guidelines of the law.

•  E.g., students are allowed to interrupt a lecture to ask questions, but only if they raise their hand and are called upon.

By placing people into specific social roles, we can change their behaviours and make them adopt behaviours that are inconsistent with their beliefs/attitudes

Indirect intimidation: Zimbardo

Zimbardo/Stanform Prison experiemt: a miltiday experiment in wich participants were assigned roles as either “guards” or “prisoners” and allowed to act out however they wanted over 2 weeks 

• Prisoners were anonymized and referred by to guards only as numbers.

•  Guards began abusing prisoners within 48 hours, stripping them naked, asking them to clean toilets with their bare hands, and verbally abusing them.

•  Several prisoners, believing they could not stop the experiment, went on hunger strikes.

•  After 6 days, the experiment was stopped after pressure from other researchers

The Zimbardo experiment also cannot be ethically replicated.

Social psychologists have significant concerns about it’s internal validity:

•  Zimbardo actively encouraged the guards to act in corrupt and aggressive ways.

•  Zimbardo was specifically chose students he believed were the most susceptible to the situation.

While social psychologists believe that social roles and situations can lead to aggressive behaviour, they have serious reservations about this study

Social groups: The engines of good and bad (3C)

• 37 people saw an assault and decided not to help, the woman was killed 

• Bystander effect: individuals often fail to help a victim when others are around; the more people around, the less likely people are to help

Big questions: Social Cognition

Social Cognition: the ability to reason, remember, and infer the desires and beliefs of other people

• Why did somebody act this way?

• How do we remember somebody’s actions?

• How do we predict what they might do in the futures? 

Big questions: Manipulating others

Representing other minds means that we can also attempt to change them

• Sometimes, we persuade directly 

• Other times, we manipulate others indirectly without their realisation 

Big questions: Optimal Cooperation 

Working in groups has clear benefits

• We can combine efforts to do more than any single person

• We can divide labour so that each person can become specialised

• We can pass knowledge to each other over time.

But these benefits are only possible if everyone cooperates equally

How do humans think and arrange for optimal cooperation?

Big questions: Cost of groups 

Group behaviour can cause incredible harm

• People tend to stereotype and discriminate against other groups

• People tend to loaf and do less in a group than on their own

• People can show extremely high levels of aggression

How do we make sure human beings are as prosocial as possible?

Social Cognition: Theory of mind

Theory of mind (ToM): the ability to represent the beliefs, desires, emotions and intentions of other people; strongly related to perspective-taking

When you use your theory of mind, you can 

• Predict what other people will do 

• Explain the motives behind their actions 

• Reason about where you agree and disagree with them 

Right temporal Parietal Junction (rTPJ): a brain region that is especially active when we think about the thoughts of others

• People are given stories to read, and their brains are scanned

• Stories about other people’s thoughts especially involve the rTPJ

Social Cognition: Attributions

Attribution: an inference about the cause of a person’s behaviour: is it their own disposition /personality or the situation they are in

• We will be thinking about it as black and white 

What pushes out interpretations? 

• Consistency: does the person act this way in similar situations 

  • High consistency = disposition; low consistency = situation

• Distinctiveness/Uniqueness: Does the person act this way in different situations 

  • Low distinctive =disposition; Highly distinctive = situation 

• Consensus: do other people act this way in similar situations

  • Low consensus = disposition; high consensus = situation 

  • Not agreement, but action 

  • Not influenced by other people 

Fundamental attribution Error/ Correspondence Bias: a general bias to make disposition attributions 

• A driver runs a red light: they are a terrible driver (not that they may be in a hurry to get to the hospital)

• A friend doesn't reply right away: they don't like you (in fact, they may be be very busy

• A waitress is not friendly to you: generally a rude person (not that they are woking overtime because their boss forced her to

Actor-observer effect: the general bias to make situational attributions of ourselves

• You runa  red light: youre not a bad driver, you didnt have time to stop 

• You dont reply right away: you like your friends, youjjust were too busy with something else at the time

• You are rude to somebdoy: youa renot a bad person, you just had a readlly bad day 

Social Congiton: Social nroms

Social norms: expectations of appropriate behvaiour which everybody in the culture is supposed to act in accordance with 

• Breaking of social norms is almost alway considered a disposition cause 

• Individuals who repreadly break norms are often socially excluded

• This has early developmental origins: if a young child sees an adult use a fork to comb her hair, the child will refuse to learn memaings of new wrods from the same adult 

Social nroms are useful and make attributions quicker 

But they can be manipulated and exploited 

• Hard to chage

• Not coress cultrually universatil

• Can be used to change peoples behvaoiur without them realising

Attitudes, Beliefs and Behaviours (1A)

Belief: enduring knowledge about the object, person or event

• Can be true or false

Attitudes: semi-enduring feelings that predispose us to respond to object,s people and events

• Can be positive, neutral or negative 

Behaviours: Actions we take in the world

• Usually, but not always, the consequence of beliefs and/or attitudes 

Persuation

Persuation: an attempt at changing a person’s attitudes, beliefs and/or bejavopirs

Requires:

• Message Source: the thing generating the message (e.g, a person, an ad)

• Message content: what the message is

• Message target: the person who we are attempting to persuade (e.g a customer, a voter) 

Message Target: Cognitive dissodnce 

The source gives a message that motivates the target to change their attitudes/beliefs/behaviours. What would this motivation be?

Cognitive Dissonance: the negative feeling experienced from attitude/belief/behaviour contradiction, motivating us to change them.

• For example, you believe that it is important to minimize food waste, but you still threw out a bunch of food you bought into the garbage. You promise to yourself to not do it again in the future.

Cognitive dissonance is thought to explain many “irrational” actions:

• People raise their evaluation of products they can afford to buy, and reduce their evaluation of those they can’t.

• Political radicalization often occurs from dissonance pushing people towards rejecting the arguments given to them as conspiracies or unreliable information.

•  Dissonance is very strong if people are first asked to explicitly and publicly state what they believe, especially when going back on that belief has a negative outcome.

Message Content 

Elaboration likelihood model: The Theoretical model of persuasion that argues that people can be influenced through one of two “routes”:

1. Systemmatic route to persuasion: persuading someone through reason, logic, and sound arguments (usually targeting beliefs)

2. Heuristic Route to Persuasion: persuading somebody by appealing to their emotions, habits, and even indirectly (usually targets attitudes/behaviours)

Message Content: Sytematic route

The target must have two characteristics for systematic persuasion to ever work

• Motivation: the message target must be motivated to listen, oteherwqise they have no reason to consider the source’s argument 

• Ability: The message target has to have the ability to think about the message content 

Message Content: Heuristic route

The heuristic route exploits the association and social norms we all carry with us and dosent require motivation or ability

Appeal to emotion: emotional adcertisements captures out attention automatically and triggers apporach/avoidence behaviours

Expertiese: when not mtoivated to attend to the argument, we will frequnctly jjust agree if the person arguing is a trustworhy expert

• Guru Effect: if an expert says something incomprehensible, we are more likely to assume that the idea must be very complex, not that the expert isnt very good at communicating the simple idea to us 

Foot in the Door Technique: Make a small request firth, and , oce the person complies, make a bigger one 

•  E.g., when experimenters went door-to-door fund raising, people who were first asked to sign a petition were later more likely to give money than vice-versa.

Door-in-the-Face Technique: make a impossibly huge request first, and when the person declines make a smaller one.

•  E.g., when experimenters asked for a $5000 donation, people were more likely to give $100 after first rejecting than vice-versa.

•  This technique works in part because of social norm of reciprocity

Implicit Priming: a method of persuasion that brings up an association for a peticipent Who then atutomatically and unconsciously transfer it with a different bejvaour/attitude 

Examples of implicit priming:

• Slow walking study: when participants are asked to solve anagrams of words we associate with being old (e.g., SLOW, GRANDMA, etc.) they are found to walk more slowly out of the lab.

• Approach/avoidance study: when participants push a lever away from themselves whenever they see a stimulus, they are reported to like it less after the study; if they push the lever towards themselves, they like it more

Implicit priming is increasingly controversial:

• Many labs have failed to replicate the findings, or have gound them to be incomcessitant across time and participants

• Experimenter bias: when te experimetners are double blind, the implicit priming results are much harder to find

There are publication biases: it is harder to publish data when we field to find evidence for implicit priming

Forming groups (2A)

Social Group: A collection of individuals who interact with each other in cohesive structures involving norms and common goals

• Group cohesion:  a sense of unity, belonging, and group efficacy 

• Group Norms/Social Contract: rules that govern the privileges and the costs of group membership; often implicit ( 😙Costco membership)

Forming groups: The start (3B)

Most groups begin form recogntion of common goal

Robber’s cave experiment: ( 😬Harry Potter)

• Twelve-year old boys participated in a week study where they attended a summer camp in which certain resources (e.g baseballs) were made purposefully scares (NOT UNETHICAL)

• One gorup was randomly assigned to the “eagles” and the other to the “rattlers” after two days, the boys coordinated to acquire resources for their gorup and deny it to the toher, and became very hostile towards the other group, believing them to eb inferior 

Forming groups: Belonging (1A)

• Ingroup positivity: attributing positive traits to members of the ignroup (your group)

• Outgroup negativity: attripubitng negative traits to members of outgorips (those who are not in your gorup)

  • Possession gmore negative trails (e.g they are dumber, lazier ,etc)

  • More homogenous than the ingroup (“all of them are the same”)

  • Acting badly for disposition reasons, while ingorup is situationla

Benefits of groups (2B)

Social Facilitation: situations in which groups person better togher than any individual within the group would on their on 

For example:

• Groups can combine effort tot od more than any single person

• Groups can divide labour so that each person canbecome specilized 

• Groups can pass knowledge to each other over time 

Social falicliation is maximixed whner:

• Group cohesion is high: gorup members know hwat to expect of each other and trust each other

•  The common goal is well defined and not too dicifult: with poor goal definition, too much time is spent on deciding how to do something collectively

• Credit and blame can be easily given: otherwise some infiviusals may try to cheat and not work as hard

• WHen the group isnt too large: as group size grows, so does the tendency to disagree and not work as hard 

Costs fo groups  (3C)

There are also common situations in which groups paradoxically do wose than individuals 

1. Diffusion of responsibility

2. HGroupthink

3. Confomity and individualism     

4. Reduced cooperation with other grups 

Costs fo groups: Social Loafing (2A)

Social Loafing: The tending to expend less effort in a group

• Rope tugging experiment: people in a grope tugging competition exert significantly less effort ina group than indivicually; the size of the group correlates with less effort 

Costs fo groups: Bystander effect  (2A)

Bystander effect: individuals fail to help in emergencies when others are around; the more people, the less likely people are to help 

The bystander effect is one of the most important things you can learn in social psycholog:

If you see somebody needing help and nobody esle is helping, dont assume that the person dosent need help! You mau be suffering from the bystander effect and ther person could be hurt or in dager 

Costs fo groups: Groupthink  (2A)

Groupthink:a situation in which a the group maximize cohesion/unity ahead of making an effective decision; especially likely when the group’s identity is threated 

Most often occur through: 

• Illusion of agreement falsely believing all members have the same belif 

• Self censorship: not voicing your outlier view ro mantin unity 

• Extreme outgroup negativity: belief that some outgorup is attempting to dissolve the ingroup 

• Illusion of invulnerability: belief that the gorup couldnt make a bad decision 

Costs fo groups: Conformity  (1A)

Conformity: the change in one’s own attitudes, beliefs, and or behvaiorus to be more consistent with the norms of the group; most often done to demonstrate membership and increasing belonging 

• Sometimes the conformity is temporary brut public (compliance) 

• Other times, conformity leads to more endirong changes in beliefs, attitudes and behaviors (conversion) either publicly or privately 

Asch Confomrit experiment:participants are brought in  and asked to identify which fo three persisted lines is the same length
- only one person is a real participant; the others are actors puropsoefully choose the wrong lines to see if the participant conforms 

• 70% of epope conform

• The effect gewos with the size of the gorup

Forming groups (2A)

Social Group: A collection of individuals who interact with each other in cohesive structures involving norms and common goals

• Group cohesion:  a sense of unity, belonging, and group efficacy 

• Group Norms/Social Contract: rules that govern the privileges and the costs of group membership; often implicit ( 😙Costco membership)

Forming groups: The start (3B)

Most groups begin form recogntion of common goal

Robber’s cave experiment: ( 😬Harry Potter)

• Twelve-year old boys participated in a week study where they attended a summer camp in which certain resources (e.g baseballs) were made purposefully scares (NOT UNETHICAL)

• One gorup was randomly assigned to the “eagles” and the other to the “rattlers” after two days, the boys coordinated to acquire resources for their gorup and deny it to the toher, and became very hostile towards the other group, believing them to eb inferior 

Forming groups: Belonging (1A)

• Ingroup positivity: attributing positive traits to members of the ignroup (your group)

• Outgroup negativity: attripubitng negative traits to members of outgorips (those who are not in your gorup)

  • Possession gmore negative trails (e.g they are dumber, lazier ,etc)

  • More homogenous than the ingroup (“all of them are the same”)

  • Acting badly for disposition reasons, while ingorup is situationla

Benefits of groups (2B)

Social Facilitation: situations in which groups person better togher than any individual within the group would on their on 

For example:

• Groups can combine effort tot od more than any single person

• Groups can divide labour so that each person canbecome specilized 

• Groups can pass knowledge to each other over time 

Social falicliation is maximixed whner:

• Group cohesion is high: gorup members know hwat to expect of each other and trust each other

•  The common goal is well defined and not too dicifult: with poor goal definition, too much time is spent on deciding how to do something collectively

• Credit and blame can be easily given: otherwise some infiviusals may try to cheat and not work as hard

• WHen the group isnt too large: as group size grows, so does the tendency to disagree and not work as hard 

Costs fo groups  (3C)

There are also common situations in which groups paradoxically do wose than individuals 

1. Diffusion of responsibility

2. HGroupthink

3. Confomity and individualism     

4. Reduced cooperation with other grups 

Costs fo groups: Social Loafing (2A)

Social Loafing: The tending to expend less effort in a group

• Rope tugging experiment: people in a grope tugging competition exert significantly less effort ina group than indivicually; the size of the group correlates with less effort 

Costs fo groups: Bystander effect  (2A)

Bystander effect: individuals fail to help in emergencies when others are around; the more people, the less likely people are to help 

The bystander effect is one of the most important things you can learn in social psycholog:

If you see somebody needing help and nobody esle is helping, dont assume that the person dosent need help! You mau be suffering from the bystander effect and ther person could be hurt or in dager 

Costs fo groups: Groupthink  (2A)

Groupthink:a situation in which a the group maximize cohesion/unity ahead of making an effective decision; especially likely when the group’s identity is threated 

Most often occur through: 

• Illusion of agreement falsely believing all members have the same belif 

• Self censorship: not voicing your outlier view ro mantin unity 

• Extreme outgroup negativity: belief that some outgorup is attempting to dissolve the ingroup 

• Illusion of invulnerability: belief that the gorup couldnt make a bad decision 

Costs fo groups: Conformity  (1A)

Conformity: the change in one’s own attitudes, beliefs, and or behvaiorus to be more consistent with the norms of the group; most often done to demonstrate membership and increasing belonging 

• Sometimes the conformity is temporary brut public (compliance) 

• Other times, conformity leads to more endirong changes in beliefs, attitudes and behaviors (conversion) either publicly or privately 

Asch Confomrit experiment:participants are brought in  and asked to identify which fo three persisted lines is the same length
- only one person is a real participant; the others are actors puropsoefully choose the wrong lines to see if the participant conforms 

• 70% of epope conform

• The effect gewos with the size of the gorup

AGGression: DEFINITIONS

Aggression: behaviour done with the intention of physically, mentally, or socially hurting another living thing who does not wish to be harmed.

Two types of targets:

 Allospecific aggression: aggression directed towards members of other species (e.g., hunting).

 Conspecific aggression: aggression directed towards members of one’s own species (e.g.,war).

Two types of conspecific aggression

• Proactive/ instrumental aggression: aggression that is planned and goal oriented (bank robbery, asssination, etc)

• Reactive aggression: aggression lacking any goal other than immediate removal of a threat of a stressor; is often impulsivem, emotionally charred and/or defensive

• Some aggressive acts can be a mix of both (e.g., revenge, bullying).

The two types can be distinguished both in comparison to non-human animals, in their biology, and in their social learning.

Aggression: across animals 

Humans differ significantly from our closest relatives - chimpanzees and bonobos - in the rates of reactive asnd proactive aggression 

Aggression: biology

Testoseterone 

• Increased testosterone is a strong predictor of higher reactive aggression in most non numan animas, especially for males

• In humans, testosterone is weakly but positively associated with both reaction and proactive aggression

• Two theoried mechanisms

1. Testosterone increases sensitivity to social threats, making reactive aggression more leiley

2. Testosterone increases sense of ingroup cohesion, increasingly change of oranizing for proactive aggression 

Cortisol

• Increased cortisol is associated with more reactive aggression, both bu increasing arousal and by increasing senstivity to threats

• But it is either not reatled or negatively related to proactive aggression

Dopamine 

• Higher dopamine activity is related to reactive and proactive regression in many mammals, including humans.

•  It may be especially involved in impulsive reactive aggression

Aggression: learning

Rates of aggression vary dramatically across time and culture, and cannot be attributed to biological changes

Bobo doll experiment: children observed an adult etiehr hitting or preacfully playing with an inflatable “Bobo” clown doll

•  Children who observed the adult hit Bobo subsequently showed significantly higher levels ofaggression towards Bobo.

•  Children invented new ways to hurt Bobo, including yelling at him, using a toy gun that wasnot used by the adult, etc.

•  Children who did not observe hitting subsequently played with Bobo or ignored him and played with other toys.

Culture of Honoour: culture that emphassize social dominance and hierarchical roles and in which an insult to honour is expected to be reataliatbed with force

For example, when American students from Southern States were intentionally bumped in a hallway of an experiment, they responded with significantly more aggression than students from Northern States

Work on environmental effects on aggression suggest that:

•  Cultures vary in how much they teach that reactive and proactive aggression is permitted/expected.

•  Cultures vary in teaching which targets are permissible for aggressive acts (e.g., ingroup vs. outgroup).

•  Various environmental effects (e.g., heat, nutrition, stress) can increas tendency toward reactive aggression.

•  Strong social bonds, community organization, shared language increase possibility of proactive aggression

Cooperation: definitions

Cooperation: the behaviour of tow or more individuals working together for mutual benefit 

• mmediate/short-term: working together on the same problem at the same time in order to increase the chance of success for everyone (e.g., collective hunting).

•  Delayed/long-term: one individual cooperates without immediate benefit to themselves in order to increase the survival of the group or to get a benefit at a later time (social exchange

Cooperation: long term

A fundamental problem for long-term cooperative behaviour is that somebody might

get the benefits now, but not return them in the future.

For long-term cooperation to be viable, we need to have mechanisms that:

•  Encourage people to be cooperative at first.

•  Have ways of identifying those who are exploiting the system.

•  Punishing and exclude cheaters from the long-term cooperative behaviou

Most cultures have strong social norms that encourage cooperative long-term interaction for in-group members.

Identification and punishment of cheaters:

• Gossip: evolutionary psychologist argue that gossiping behaviiour that allows us to communicate about the cheaters in out community

• Reputaion: our midnds track the reputation of people over very long time,s possibiliy as evidence gainst the possibility of cheating in the future

• Tit for tat strategy: t he most common social exchange strategy in which people initially cooperate, but when one person in the group cheats against them, they retaliate and cheat against them until they correct their behaviou

Cooperation: prisoner’s dilemma 

Prisoner's Dilemma: a “cooperative” game/model that helps us study principles of trust,

reputation, and cheating detection.

•  Imagine that you and your friend were both caught doing a crime, like robbing a bank. You are separately put into interview rooms and the cops give you each the following choice: confess and pin it all on your friend, or stay silent.

• If you stay silent, the outcome is best for both of you (cooperation).

• If one of you stays silent while the other betrays, then the betrayer gets all the benefitsand none of the costs (non-cooperative “cheater”)

Consistent with the tit-for-tat strategy, the strategy people adopt in the prisoner's

dilemma is highly responsive to their partner’s previous actions (i.e., reputation):

•  The first time, most people are cooperative for in-group members

•  If partner is cooperative first – people tend to stay cooperative until they are willing to risk reputation for some reason.

•  If partner betrays first – people tend to keep betraying until partner corrects cheating behaviour through some kind of self-sacrifice/favour.

• ⚠ Ultimatum Game

  • A game that has 2 players, one divides the prize money while the other decides if the accept or reject the offer

  • The game reveals that people rather get nothing than see others to be treated better than themselves (petty behaviour:)How Groups Minimize the Risk of Cooperation 4⃣ ✳

    • Group= collective of people who have something in common that distinguishes them from others

    • ⚠ Common Knowledge Effect

      • = the tendency for group discussions to focus on information that all members share

      • We do this as we try to include everyone in the conversation, but the common knowledge is also often the unimportant/unrelated ones

      • Whereas the actual important knowledge that should have been discussed are often only known by few, and thus was discussed→ common knowledge effect is a cost of cooperation

  • Aggression 6⃣

    • Proactive aggression– planned and purposeful

      • Ex: Mafia kill another gangster

    • Reactive aggression– occurs spontaneously in response to a negative affective state

      • Ex: a man who gets angry and abuse wife cause they got fired at jobInterpersonal Perception

        • Stereotyping: The Problem of Category-Based Inferences 5⃣ ✳

      → 3 things that happens when the observer that holds stereotype interacts with the target (the person that’s being stereotyped):

      • ⚠ Behavioural vs. Perceptual Confirmation

      1. Behavioural confirmation= the tendency of targets to behave as the observer expects them to behave

         1. Aka self-fulfilled prophecy

         2. May cause targets to experience stereotype threat (=anxiety associated with the possibility of confirming other’s stereotypes about one’s group) → lead to pooer performance due to the threat/anxiety

         3. Ex: when students put down race in the beginning of exam

      2. Perceptual confirmation= the tendency of observers to see what they expect to see

         1. Happens when targets don’t confirm observers’ stereotype but observers stil mistakenly think that they have → perpetuate their stereotype

      • ⚠ Subtyping

        •  = the tendency of observers to think of targets who disconfirm stereotypes as “exeptions to the rule”

      3. When targets clearly  disconfirms an observer’s stereotype 

      • Attribution: The Problem of Target-Based Inferences 1⃣

      • A World of Difference: What’s It Like to Be You 🚫

      • Interpersonal Influence

        • The Hedonic Motive 1⃣ 2⃣ ✳

          • Reward and punishments often backfire:

      1. Overjustification effect

      2. ⚠ Reactance 

      = an unpleasant feeling that arises when people feel they are being coerced

      • Ppl who experience reactance tend to act oppositely,  just to prove that they can. (similar to overjustification effect)

      • !!how these rewards/punishments are worded really impact the targets’ attitude, and thus behaviour

      • The Approval Motive 3⃣ 4⃣

      • The Accuracy Motive 2⃣ ✳

        • ⚠ Informational Influence

          • = occurs when another person’s behaviour provides information about what is good or true.

          • Ex: When a salesperson tells you that “most people buy the laptop with extra memory,” they are artfully suggesting that you should take other people’s behaviour as information about which product is best.

          • Ex: best seller, popular, wait line outside instead of inside the restaurant

        • ⚠ Strength of Speaker Experiment

          • = a study where students would listen to a speech about instituting comprehensive exam at their school

          • 3 independent variables: 

      1. Speaker uses strong/weak argument → appeal to reason

      2. students were told that speaker was high/low status professor/highschool student → appeal to habit

      3. Students were told that the exams will be implemented immediately/ after their graduation

      • Result:

        • Students who thought they’d be affected instantly were persuaded via the systematic route (motivated to analze the arguments, meaning they were more convinced by strong arguments, status don’t matter as much)

        • Students who don’t think they would be impacted were persuaded via heuristic route (more persuaded by high status speaker over low status speaker, despite strength of argument)

      • ⚠ Dull Task Experiment 

        • =students perform a really boring door-knob-twisting task, then were paid to to lie to other students about how fun this task is so they would also participate. 

        • Independent variable: paid $1 or $20

        • Dependent variable: how fun do they actually think the task were

        • Result:

          • The group that was paid $1 to lie find the boring task to be more fun than $20 group 

          • 20 dollar is enough to justify lying, but 1 dollar is not enough → experience Cognitive Dissonance → so the $1 group change their belief about the task from boring to fun