Chapter 9: Social Psychology

Front 1

Group

Back 1

Interdependent people who have potential for mutual interaction

Front 2

Features of a Group

Back 2

Social norms: shared rules and expectations about how members should behave. Social roles: cluster of norms that apply to people in a particular position. Similarity: people are attracted to similar others. Group cohesiveness: the more cohesive, the more likely group members will stay

Front 3

Stanford Prison Study

Back 3

Social roles can be so powerful that they can take over personal identities

Front 4

Social Facilitation

Back 4

the tendency for people to be aroused into better performance on simple tasks (or tasks at which they are expert or that have become autonomous) when under the eye of others, rather than while they are alone (audience effect), or when they are working along side other people (coactor effect). Complex tasks (or tasks at which people are not skilled), however, are often performed in an inferior manner in such situations.

Front 5

Social Inhibition

Back 5

Social inhibition is a conscious or unconscious constraint or curtailment by a person of a process or behaviour that the person may consider objectionable in a social setting. Inhibitions can serve necessary social functions, reducing or preventing certain antisocial impulses from being acted on.

Front 6

Ant Study

Back 6

Chen, in 1937, observed ants excavating soil for four days. On the first day, he had them so it alone. Day 2: groups of 2. Day 3: groups of 3. Day 4: alone. Results: The ants moved more soil when they worked in groups.

Front 7

Cockroach Study (original and replication)

Back 7

Gates and Allee, 1933, taught cockroaches to learn a maze where they could escape the light by running into a dark bottle. Result: Learned the maze faster when they were alone. Shows that we learn more complex things faster when alone. Replicated with Zajonc in 1969, IV1: Presence of other roaches, IV2: difficult or easy maze. Results: in the presence of others, the cockroaches improved running times in simple maze, but worsened running times in difficult maze.

Front 8

Zajonc’s Social Facilitation Theory

Back 8

Presence of others increases motivation. Increased arousal facilitates or interferes with performance depending on task. Increases performance on well-learned tasks, but decrease performance on difficult task

Front 9

Social Loafing

Back 9

Working less hard in a group than you would have worked alone—when you individual contribution cannot be evaluated.

Front 10

Ringelmann Study

Back 10

Used a strain guage to measure effort in kilograms of pressure. When the person pulled alone, pulled 85kg per person. Team of 7: 65kg per person. Team of 4: 61 kg per person.

Front 11

Latane Study

Back 11

People clap and cheer louder by themselves than in a group

Front 12

Why does social loafing occur?

Back 12

Not accountable for actions, allows you to slack off.

Front 13

How do you reduce social loafing?

Back 13

A)Make each individual’s contribution identifiable. B) If it’s something you care about or you have a relationship group members, you are less likely to loaf.

Front 14

Jackson & Williams

Back 14

IV1: simple or complex maze. IV2: individual performance is evaluated vs. performance is averaged with partner. Results: when performance was averaged with partnet, participants performed better in difficult maze but worse on easy maze.

Front 15

Gender differences in social loafing

Back 15

Men are more likely to loaf. This is because women are higher in relational interdependence (the tendency to care about relationships with others)

Front 16

Social facilitation vs. Social loafing

Back 16

If aroused: social facilitation takes into effect (better at simple tasks, worse on complex tasks). If relaxed: social loafing comes into play (worse on simple tasks, better on complex tasks).

Front 17

Cultural differences

Front 18

Deindividuation and its effects

Back 18

The loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people are in a crowd. A) People feel less accountable for their actions if they feel they are not perceived as an individual. B) It, therefore, leads to an increase in impulsive and deviant act. C) Increases obedience to group norm (mob mentality)

Front 19

Deindividuation Studies

Back 19

Cultures in which warriors hid their identities before going to fight were more likely to kill, torture, or mutilate captives than cultures in which warriors did not hide their identities (Watson, 1973). Wearing a sports team uniform led to greater aggression (Rehm et al., 1987). Zimbardo (1970): Participants are more likely to shock others if they are anonymous. Anonymous- coats, hood: gave 2 times more shock. Not anonymous: normal clothes, name tags. In a study of lynchings, the larger the mob, the greater the savagery with which they killed their victims (Mullen). Halloween study (Beaman et al., 1979): Kids wearing Halloween costumes were more likely to take extra candy when in groups vs. alone. Those who had given their first names did so to a far lesser extent. Being part of a large group & costume/outfit/mask are important factors

Front 20

Why does deindividuation occur?

Back 20

People feel less accountable for their actions. Increased obedience to group norms.

Front 21

Process Loss

Back 21

When group interactions inhibit good problem solving

Front 22

Why does process loss occur?

Back 22

Groups may not try hard enough to find out who the most competent member is. Members are afraid to disagree with the group (conformity). And failure to share unique information.

Front 23

How to avoid process loss

Back 23

Assign each person a different responsibility. Take time to discuss unshared ideas.

Front 24

Group Polarization

Back 24

Tendency for groups to make extreme decisions

Front 25

Risky shift

Back 25

Groups tend to make riskier decision than individuals

Front 26

Why does risky shift exist?

Back 26

People gain new information from listening to others. Also, in order to be liked, people check out how everyone feels and then takes a position similar to their but a little more extreme.

Front 27

Groupthink

Back 27

Lack of preparation for Pearl Harbor attack (1941, Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba (1960), Challenger explosion (1986) – afraid to make big decision/ Internal division

Front 28

Conditions for groupthink

Back 28

Highly cohesive groups, strong, dynamic leaders; sealed off from outside opinions.

Front 29

Symptoms of Groupthink

Back 29

Illusion of invulnerability, belief in moral correctness of group, stereotyped views of out-group, self-censorship, pressure to conform, illusion of unanimity

Front 30

How to avoid groupthink

Back 30

Impartial leaders, get outside information, divide into subgroups, and secret ballots.

Front 31

Juries and groupthink

Back 31

Problems can occur at each phase of trial (before, during, and after evidence is presented). Pretrail: Publicity created an emotional biasing. Likely names and events damaging even in opposite directions. Solutions: “Please destroy evidence you have seen” Trail: Lawyers present their evidence in either story order or witness order. Juries are more likely to believe work presented in story order vs. witness order. One reason the conviction rate in felony trials in America is so high (about 80%) is that in real trail, prosecutors usually use the story order while defence attorneys usually use the witness order. Deliberations: In 97% of cases, the jury’s final decision (guilty vs. not guilty) will be the one initially favored by the majority. But minority views can have an effect: Minority opinions often change people’s minds about the extent of guilt Ex: first degree murder vs second degree murder. Jury Size: 6 vs. 12. Problem with 6: a minority of 1 on a 6-person jury is much more likely to conform than 2 people on a 12-person jury. Social psych ---> 12 jurors

Front 32

Social dilemma

Back 32

A conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual will, if chosen by most people, have harmful effects on everyone; Ex: pollution.

Front 33

Prisoner’s Dilemma

Back 33

DA thinks that suspects have committed a major crime together but has no proof against either one.

Front 34

Cooperators

Back 34

maximizing joint rewards received by both self and partner

Front 35

Competitors

Back 35

maximizing their own gains relative to those of partner (want to do better than partner)

Front 36

Individualists

Back 36

maximizing own gains, no concern for gains or losses of partner

Front 37

Norm of reciprocity

Back 37

initial competition provokes more competitions and vice versa

Front 38

Groups and Competition

Back 38

Groups end up being more competitive than the individual, the US as a culture is also very competitive

Front 39

Commons Dilemma

Back 39

a social dilemma in which everyone takes from a common pool of goods that will replenish itself if used in moderation but will disappear if overused. Relates to natural resources.

Front 40

How do people divide?

Back 40

Rural structure, reminding people of social norms, and individual value limitations.