Gre Psych: Social Psych

Front 1

Attitudes

Back 1

Learned, global evaluations of a person, object, place, or issue that influence thought and action (Perloff, 2003). A

2. Attitudes are basic expressions of approval or disapproval, favorability or unfavorability,

3.Bem (1970) put it, likes and dislikes.

Front 2

Consistency Theory

Back 2

People prefer consistency and will change (or refuse to change) based on this.

Examples: Cognitive Dissonance (Leon Festinger) and Balance Theory (Fritz Heider)

Front 3

History of Social Psych:
1. Norman Triplett
2. William McDougal and E.H. Ross
3. Verplank, Pavlov, Hull, Thorndike, Skinner
4. Bandura

Back 3

1. Triplett: 1st Social Psych study
2. McDougal: 1st Social Psych textbook
3. Verplank et. all: Reinforcement Theory (beh. is motivated by anticipated rewards)
4. Bandura: Social Learning Theory (behavior learned through imitation)

Front 4

Role Theory (Bindle 1970)

Back 4

People are aware of their social roles and behave to fulfill them

Front 5

Social Cognitive Theory

Back 5

The reciprocal nature of the determinants of human functioning.
portions of an individual's knowledge acquisition can be directly related to observing others within the context of social interactions, experiences, and outside media influences.

Front 6

Fritz Heider's Theory

Back 6

Fritz Heider's Balance Theory!

The balance between you, another person, and a thing (or idea, other person).

1. Balance: Odd numbers, 1 or 3 likes.
2. Unbalance: Even numbers. 0 or 2 likes.

*Achieving balance: By changing your attitude about the other person or about the thing. Or the other person can change their attitude about the thing.

Front 7

Leon Festinger's Theory

Back 7

Leon Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Your internal conflict when your actions don't match your attitudes.

Front 8

2 types of dissonant situations

Back 8

1. Free-choice: When you choose between several desirable alternatives. (like choosing one woman from two that you love).

Post-Decisional Dissonance: When you get dissonance AFTER you decide something.

How to diffuse? Accentuate the positive in your choice, or accentuate the negative in your reject (Spreading of alternatives).

2. Forced-Compliance Dissonance: When you're forced to do something you object to.

Minimal/ Insufficient Justification Effect: When external justification is low, you need to reduce your dissonance by changing your own attitudes.
So: Attitude change happens when behavior is induced with minimum pressure.

Front 9

Daryl Bem's Theory

Back 9

Daryl Bem's Self-Perception Theory!

When your attitude about something is weak, you look at your actions to attribute an attitude to yourself.

In this theory there's no dissonance, and initial attitude is irrelevant.

Front 10

Overjustification Effect

Back 10

When you get outside reward for something you actually enjoy, you'll stop enjoying it.

Front 11

Carl Hovland's Model

Back 11

Attitude change is a process of convincing someone. There's 3 parts: communicator, communication, situation.

Sleeper Effect: Over time, the persuasive effect of high-cred sources went down and the persuasiveness of low-cred sources went up.

Communicator: The more credible, the more persuasive. People can be come more credible by arguing against their own self-interests.

Two-sided messages: Arguments for and against a position, seem "balanced." (ex news reporting)

Front 12

Petty and Cacioppo's Model

Back 12

Petty and Cacioppo's Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion

Two routes to persuasion:

1. Central: When the issue's important to us. We follow the argument closely, evaluate it. Strong arguments are more likely to change our mind.

2. Peripheral: We don't really care. We'll not pay attention, and the strength of the argument doesn't matter as much as HOW, by WHOM, OR CONTEXT of argument.

Front 13

William McGuire

Back 13

Resistance to Persuasion (William McGuire)

Analogy of inoculation.
1. Cultural trusim: Used in this research b/c they're seldom questioned.
2. Refuted counterarguments: 1st present an argument vs. the truism, then refute it. It's an inoculation.
3. Belief perseverance: People hold beliefs even after evidence they're false. (ex. when you're induced to believe something and provide your own explanation for it).

Reactantce: When a person's sense of freedom is threatened and they act to reassert their freedom. When you try too hard to persuade, they won't belive you.

Front 14

Social Comparison Theory

Back 14

Leon Festinger's Social Comparison Theory

We affiliate because we need to compare ourselves with others.

Principles:
1. People prefer to self-evaluate with nonsocial, objective means. If not possible, we compare to others
2. With less similarity of opinions between 2 people, there's less tendancy to compare yourself with that group.
3. When there's a difference between your opinions and a group's, you change YOUR position to match theirs.

Front 15

Stanley Schachter re: social comparison

Back 15

Greater anxiety leads to a greater need to affiliate. Anxious people like being around other anxious people.

Front 16

Reciprocity Hypothesis

Back 16

We like people who say they like us (and the reverse is also true).

Front 17

Aronson and Linder

Back 17

Gain-loss principle: A judgment of a person that CHANGES if more impactful than one that stays the same.

Front 18

Social Exchange/ Equity Theory

Back 18

1. Social Exchange: A person weighs the costs and benefits of interacting with another person. The more the pluses outweigh the minuses, the stronger the attraction.

2. Equity: We also consider the other person's cost/benefit ratio. We want their to be equal to ours.

Front 19

Individual Charachtersitics

Back 19

1. Similarity and affiiliation

2. Physical attractiveness and the attractiveness stereotype: Attribute positive qualities to pretty people.

3. Spatial Proximity: Love people who like close to us! Even small differences in distance will have an effect. Why? More access, more opportunity, Increased intensity of initial attraction.

4. Mere exposure hypothesis: Familiarity. Repeated exposure leads to liking. (it's Robert Zajonc's work)

Front 20

Prosocial, Helping Behavior, Altruism

Back 20

1. Altruism: To help someone at your expense.
2. Helping behavior: Altruism, selfish motives, egotistical motives.
3. Prosocial: Helps people

Front 21

John Darley and Bibb Latante

Back 21

Bystander Intervention: With 1964 Kitty murder. No one helped- is it "bystander apathy?" Or...

1. Social Influence: Presence of others may lead you to interpret an event as a nonemergency. Leading others to think an event's a nonemergency is Pluralistic Ignorance.

2. Diffusion of Responsibility: With others present, responsibility, guilt, and blame get shifted around!

Front 22

Empathy and Helping Behavior

Back 22

Empathy: Vicariously experiencing someone else's emotions.

1. Baton's empathy-altruism model: In a potential to help situation, people may feel distress or empathy, both can cause helping behavior.

Found people who feel more empathy than distress tend to help.

Front 23

Bandura's Theory

Back 23

Social Learning Theory: Aggression is learned through modeling (direct observation) or reinforcement. Bobo doll. Also, aggressive behavior is selectively reinforced- People act aggressively because they expect some reward.

Front 24

Frustration- Aggression Hypothesis

Back 24

When people are frustrated, they act aggressively. Found: It's true, and there's a positive correlation.

Front 25

Muzafer Sherif's Study

Back 25

Muzafer Sherif's Conformity Study

Studied the autokinetic effect. One subject's estimates of the movement of the light CHANGED so that the group agreed on amount of movement.

Front 26

Solomon Asch's Study

Back 26

Solomon Asch's Conformity Study!

Subject conform to groups even when the group answer is dead wrong. Gave wrong answer at least once 75% of the time

Front 27

Stanely Milgram's Experiment

Back 27

Stanely Milgram's Obedience Experiment

So obvious I don't even need to say it.

Front 28

Foot-in-the-Door Effect

Door-in-the-Face Effect

Back 28

1. Foot in the Door: Compliance with a small request increases likelihood of compliance with a larger request.

2. Door in the Face: People who refuse a large request may accept a smaller one.

Front 29

Clark and Clark Study

Back 29

Clark and Clark Doll Study:

1947 with Doll Preference task. Most kids love the white doll. Highlighted effects of rasicm and minority status on self-concept of black kids. Presented at Brown v. Board (vs. school seg).

Front 30

Dimensions of Personal ID

Back 30

Our identities are organized according to a hierarchy of salience (in a particular situation)

Front 31

Primacy and Recency Effect on Social Perception

Back 31

1. Primacy Effect: When first impressions are more important than other impressions.

2. Recency Effect: When the most recent information is the most important.

Front 32

Attribution Theory (founded by?)

Back 32

Fritz Heider founded Attribution Theory.

Att. Theory: People tend to infer the causes of other people's behaviors. There's two categories of causes:
1. Situational: External causes, relate to features of the surroundings.
2. Dispositional: Relate to features of the person being considered

Biases in attribution process: There's a general bias towards dispositional attributions (the Fundamental Attribution Error).

Front 33

1. Halo Effect
2. M.J. Lerner's study

Back 33

1. Halo Effect: Allowing a general impression about a person to influence other, more specific evaluations (she can do no wrong because I like her)
2. M.J Lerner studied Just World Belief: A strong JWB may lead to blaming the victim.

Front 34

Theodore Newcomb's Study

Back 34

Theodore Newcomb's Bennington College Study:

Rich conservative chicks at a liberal school. Come in conservative, with more years at school they get more liberal (ie Students increasingly accepted the norms of their community).

Follow up: Whatever label the girls left school with (Dem/ Rep), they stayed with. Whatever belief they left with, they married men with similar beliefs. If liberal women married Republicans, they went back to being Republican.

Front 35

Edward Hall's Study

Back 35

Edward Hall's Study and Proxemics:

1. There's cultural norms governing how far away we stand from people.
2. Proxemics: Study of how individuals space themselves in relation to others.

Front 36

Zajonc's Theory (re: groups)

Back 36

Zajonc: Presence of others increases arousal and enhances the emission of dominant responses.

For expert at task, presence of others increases their performance, but if you're doing something new, presence of others makes performance worse.

Front 37

Social Loafing

Back 37

Social Loafing: people put in less effort in a big group vs. individually.

Front 38

Ziambardo's Anonymity

Back 38

Philip Ziambardo: People are more likely to commit antisocial act when they feel anonymous in a social environment.

He did the Prison Simulation: The major process operating was DEINDIVIDUATION: A loss of self-awareness and personal identity. Sense of self was overwhelmed by roles in experiment.

Front 39

Irving Janis.

1. Groupthink
2. Risky Shift
3. Value Hypothesis

Back 39

Irving Janis studies group decision making.

1. Groupthink: The tendency of decision-making groups to strive for consensus, even if it means NOT considering discordant information

2. Risky Shift: Group decisions are riskier than the avg. of individual choices. Why?
3. Value Hypothesis: Risky shift occurs in cultures where risk taking is culturally valued.

Front 40

James Stoner

Back 40

Dilemmas presented to couples re: risky shift. There's a shift toward caution vs. risk. So: The content of the item can determine the direction of the shift.

Front 41

Group Polarization and Extremity Shift

Back 41

Extremity Shift: Group decisions tend to be more extreme, not necessarily more risky

Why? Because of group polarization: Tendency for group discussions to ENHANCE the group's original tendencies toward risk/caution.

Front 42

Leadership Qualities

Back 42

Leaders have: More communication (and by artificially increasing how much a person talks, their leadership status seems to go up)

Front 43

Kurt Lewin's Study

Back 43

Kurt Lewin's Study: to determine effect of different leadership styles.

Found:
1. Autocratic: More hostile, more aggressive, more leader-dependent. Better work quality.
2. Democratic: More satisfying for members, more cohesive than autocratic. Stronger work motivation and interest.
3. Laissez-faire: Less efficient, less organized, less satisfying for members (vs. democratic groups)

Front 44

Prisoners Dilemma

Back 44

Cooperate or compete?
1. Lose most of they both compete
2. One person loses most of they cooperate and other competes
3. One gains most if he competes and the other guy cooperates

D.A: Wants both to confess, both charged. Worst for DA: if they cooperate.

Front 45

Muzafer Sherif's Experiment re: cooperation

Back 45

Muzar Sherif's Robber's Cave Experiment.

Kids in groups; found: Status Hierarchy, Role Differentiation, norms for behavior, self-adopted names for groups, group allegiance.

Then compete with other group: Hostility!

Group events to reduce hostility: Contact. Didn't work. Then: Had to cooperate. So: With SUPERORDINATE GOALS: goals are best obtained through intergroup interactions. So: Dramatically improved relations.

Front 46

Eagly, A

Back 46

Gender differences in conformity may be due to different social roles (NOT gender)