Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
149 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is Social Psychology?
|
The scientific study of how people think about, influence, and relate to others.
|
|
|
What are the 4 factors that we study in Social Psych?
|
a) influence on groups, b) how we act towards others, c) the power of the situations, c) the power of the person.
|
|
|
What two things encompass behavior?
|
Behavior is the function of the person and the situation.
|
|
|
What are the three major theoretical perspectives that started social psychology?
|
In the early 1900s, the psychoanalytic theory, behaviorism, and Gestalt created the the notion of social psychology.
|
|
|
What is Psychoanalytic theory?
|
Claims behavior is motivated from within because of powerful internal drives and impulses, like sexuality and aggression. Even adult behavior is shaped by unresolved childhood experiences. WEAKNESSES: Doesn't take into consideration any environmental factors at all.
|
|
|
What is Behaviorism?
|
Claims that our personalities are dictated by punishments and rewards from our environment. Our environment shapes are personalities. WEAKNESSES: Doesn't take into consideration our cognitive abilities, where we can make decisions about our environmental factors. Advocates include Skinner and Pavlov.
|
|
|
What is Gestalt?
|
People perceive situations not as discrete elements but rather as "dynamic wholes". Whole > sum of its parts.
|
|
|
Who founded Gestalt theory?
|
Kurt Lewin was the innovator of this theory. He was the first to suggest that we need to take into consideration the perceiver's perspective. Also believed that to understand social behaviors, you must try to change it.
|
|
|
First Social Psychology Experiment.
|
Triplett noticed in the late 1800s that bikers are faster in competition. Therefore, in 1898, he conducted the first social psychology experiment, where he found that boys reel in faster when with others than when alone.
|
|
|
What are the different categories of theories in Social Psychology?
|
Motivational, Cognitive, Learning, Interdepenence, Sociocultural, Evolutionary
|
|
|
Motivational theories
|
How our needs influence our perceptions, attitudes, and behavior. We need to feel good and we have to be accurate, so we tend to blame others or justify our actions irrationally.
|
|
|
Learning theories
|
Behavior is determined by prior experiences, associations, reinforcements, observational learning. Punishment stops behavior.
|
|
|
Cognitive theories
|
Behavior is determined by how you perceive the social situation (current perspectives and interpretations)
|
|
|
Decision Making theories
|
Falls under Cognitive. We evaluate the costs and benefits and pick the best option in a logical way.
|
|
|
Interdependence theories
|
the outcome one person receives depends at least in part on the behavior of the other (and vice versa)
|
|
|
Sociocultural theories
|
Behavior is influences by people's diverse backgrounds, beliefs, etc. Collectivism vs. Individualism
|
|
|
Evolutionary Social Psychology
|
Evolution and natural selection affect behavior. Example, babies for strong connections with parents.
|
|
|
Can any one theory be utilized?
|
No, theories are combined and integrated together because not one theory can be utilized on its own.
|
|
|
Where do research ideas start?
|
a) with observations, b) furthering previous data/theories, c) personal experiences.
|
|
|
Why do we use the scientific theory?
|
a) Eliminates the confirmation bias, b) Allows for theory testing.
|
|
|
What's theory testing?
|
1. Theory about general behavior. 2. Specific prediction about theory (hypothesis). 3. Research hypothesis and assess validity. This will either increase or decrease confidence in the theory
|
|
|
Theory
|
an explanation of using a set of principals that organizes and predicts observations. (i.e. watching violent tv shows leads to aggression in children)
|
|
|
How are theories strengthed?
|
Through replication and the manipulation of theories
|
|
|
Random Sample
|
each person in the population has an equal chance of being included
|
|
|
Are social psych experiments usually random?
|
No, 75% of all studies are with college students.
|
|
|
What are the goals of social psychology studies?
|
Description (observational, categorize behavior), Causal Analysis (Experimental, correlate behaviors), Theory Building (develop theories), and finally, Application (solve problems with theory)
|
|
|
What are the three methods of Social Psychology?
|
a) Observational, b) Correlational, c)Experimental
|
|
|
Observational Method
|
Describing behavior, observer just observes, no altering, archival analysis.
|
|
|
Correlational Method
|
relationship between 2 or more variables
|
|
|
Experimental Method
|
primary, establishing cause
|
|
|
Benefits of Observational
|
easy to conduct, can get real unaltered behavior
|
|
|
Disadvantages of Observational
|
some behaviors (private) are hard to observe, and there isn't a clear cause/effect. It may be difficult to generalize findings. Not common in Social Psychology
|
|
|
Advantages of Correlational
|
can't always manipulate factors, and efficient
|
|
|
Disadvantages of Correlational
|
Reverse causality (A->B, B<-A), Third-Party Variable
|
|
|
What's the range of the correlational coefficient?
|
-1 to +1, 0 has no correlation
|
|
|
Does correlation '= causation?
|
No, it's important to remember that you can't prove two things are immediately related because of correlations. They, however, can show relatedness.
|
|
|
What's a research method that utilizes correlational data?
|
Surveys. They represent population groups and are efficient, but can be biased as well.
|
|
|
Advantages of Experimental
|
establishes cause, control over all the variables
|
|
|
Disadvantages of Experimental
|
Often costly, poor generalizability, not possible sometimes.
|
|
|
Lab Experiment
|
Artificial setting, controlled by researcher, There is a consent and the participant knows he/she is involved.
|
|
|
Advantages of Lab Experiment
|
minimizes extraneous factors, eliminate unwanted variations
|
|
|
Disadvantages of Lab Experiment
|
Costly, artificial, biases that result from unnatural environment
|
|
|
Advantage of Field Experiment
|
external validity, can deal with powerful situations not available in lab, minimizes participants' suspicions
|
|
|
Disadvantages of Field Experiment
|
difficult to randomly assign and measure variable, difficult to purely manipulate the IV.
|
|
|
Internal Validity
|
How controlled everything within the experiment was. Only the IV influenced the DV
|
|
|
What's a valid p-value?
|
<.05
|
|
|
External Validity
|
the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized to other situations with other people (generalization across people/situations)
|
|
|
Experiment Bias
|
subtle cues from experiments. Solution: Double Blind or standardize experiment
|
|
|
Subject Bias
|
the participants may develop motives, knowing they're in the study may change behavior. Solution: don't tell participants
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: TUSKEGEE
|
Focus is Ethics. The US Health Service tracked 399 black men with untreated syphilis and 201 in a control group. The men were not given medicine, told of their conditions, or given the right to consent. Most died.
|
|
|
Ethics in Experiments
|
From the mid-to-late 1970s, several ethical laws were created as psychological experimenting became more popular.
|
|
|
Informed Consent
|
People must know they are in studies, eventually.
|
|
|
Debriefing
|
make sure all participants know what happened
|
|
|
Minimal Risk
|
There cannot be an invasion of privacy or stress, anxiety, fear, etc.
|
|
|
Internal Review Board (IRB)
|
every institution creates one and they must be informed and give consent before research.
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: MIDDLEMIST
|
Middlemist worked with pee. His study assessed whether bathroom proximity affects how quickly you pee. Yes. But, the study was not ethical because it was an invasion of privacy and there was no consent.
|
|
|
Define Social Cognition
|
The study of the ways in which people think about themselves and the social world. How people make judgements about others and how people gather information and decide what info to use.
|
|
|
What are the 2 modes of Cognition?
|
Automatic and Controlled
|
|
|
Automatic Cognition
|
Non-conscious, unintentional, unvoluntary, effortless, more natural, more bias. Stroop Test (reading colors that are written in different colors).
|
|
|
Cocktail Party Effect
|
You will be able to pick up your name amongst the buzz of a party
|
|
|
Automatic Thinking
|
When we utilize and activiate our schemas to make assumptions
|
|
|
Schema
|
An organized, structured set of cognitions about some concept or stimulus
|
|
|
When are schemas formed?
|
Typically during childhood. Once the schema is created, we categorize our experiences into preexisting schemas.
|
|
|
Advantages of Schemas
|
efficient, we need schemas to help us organize information and then create expectations. We process in relation to these schemas
|
|
|
Disadvantages of Schemas
|
Can overly accept information into a schema (stereotyping), we ignore some information that doesn't fit and remain inflexible
|
|
|
Organization of Schemas
|
They have an order of specificity. We eventually look at "examplars". (i.e. City Schema '= NYC).
|
|
|
What influences (3) what schema we use?
|
a) Salience, b)Individual Differences (how important something personally is), c)Accessiblity (how familiar and recent you’ve used the schema)
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: THE DONALD PARADIGM, BARGH & PIETROMONACO
|
Focuses on Schemas and Priming. Participants were primed with hostile/non-hostile words. They read paragraph describing Donald's ambiguous behavior. (Salesman knocked on the door, but Donald didn't let him in) Those who were shown hostile words thought Donald was hostile.
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: BARGH, STUDY 1
|
Focuses on Schemas and Priming. IV: Adjective primed, rude vs. polite vs. neutral words. DV: How likely participants were to interrupt a conversation. Results: Polite: 17%, Neutral: 30%, Rude: 64%
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: BARGH, STUDY 2
|
Focuses on Schemas and Priming. Elderly words experiment. IV: Priming, elderly stereotypes vs. neutral words. DV: Measured how slow/fast ppl would walk afterwards. Results: Priming elderly stereotypes that lead to slower pace
|
|
|
Dual-process model
|
Schemas (Auto) --------------------- Systematic (Cognitive)
|
|
|
What influences (3) where are you lie on the dual-process model?
|
Accountablity of your decision, time pressure, and the availability of cognitive resources. (Motivation and ability)
|
|
|
When are we more likely to use cognitive shortcuts?
|
When we are physiologically aroused (horror movie)
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: BODENHAUSEN
|
Focuses on Cognitive Shortcuts. Circadian arousal determines use of mental shortcuts. Study 1: Automatic Processing. Study 2: Guilt about Racist Statement
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: HILDA EXPERIMENT, PENDRY AND MACRAE
|
Focuses on Preoccupation and Schema Activation. IV1: Some participants were told they could win money by working interdependently with Hilda (a 65 year old). The other half were told they could win money solely based on their performance. IV2: Half the subjects were told to repeat a # over and over again (cognitive preoccupation). Results: Only the interdependent and non-busy participants were able to have lessened elderly stereotypes. Conclusion: It is only when you combine a desire for accuracy with sufficient cognitive resources that people can move beyond their tendency to simplify.
|
|
|
Why do schemas persevere?
|
Prior expectations lead us to focus primarily on confirming evidence and ignoring discomforting evidence.
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: ROSS ET AL
|
Focuses on Belief in Self as it Correlates with Schema Confirmation. Participants were given a stack of cards containing real/fake suicide notes. Half were told that they got 24/25 right, the other half were told they got 10/25 right. Then, they were told this informaiton is false and asked to estimate how many they would get correct anyway. Results: Positive Feedback (24/25) were more sure of themselves. Negative Feedback (10/25) were less sure.
|
|
|
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
|
We behave towards others in ways that tend to confirm their beliefs.
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: SYNDER & SWANN
|
Focuses on Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: SNYDER, TANKE, AND BERSCHEID
|
Focuses on Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. IV: Give 1/2 males attractive picture or woman, and the other ugly. The male then talked to this woman on the phone. They were interested in both the male and female convo. DV: Observers' opinions on females' personalities; males' impression of female. Results: Noted that females who were thought to be more beautiful actually acted more animated, happy, etc.
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: ROSENTHAL & JACOBSON
|
Focuses on Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Students who were preconceived by teachers to be bright performed really well, those who were labeled as neutral performed neutrally, and those who were labeled as stupid performed very poorly.
|
|
|
Consequences of Schemas
|
a) negative information is powerful (lot of weight), b) Humans make errors integrating information.
|
|
|
Covariation
|
ideas that associate two things together. (Blondes are dumb)
|
|
|
Illusory Correlation
|
When we overestimate the degree of relationship
|
|
|
Framing Effects
|
How information is presented, syntax and context
|
|
|
Mood on Schemas
|
Happy people are expansive, inclusive and impulsive (auto processing). Sad people are more thoughtful and are slower (controlled).
|
|
|
Why do we still have to use shemas?
|
We make poor social inferences because of predictable errors, but we still need these schemas to help us organize all of our information, just because there is so much.
|
|
|
Representative Heuristic
|
matches info in environment against schemas to determine likelihood that match is appropiate.
|
|
|
Heuristics
|
mental shortcuts that help people invoke their schemas
|
|
|
Conjunction error
|
combining info that does not belong together because the info seems like it should go together.
|
|
|
Sports Illustrated Jinx
|
believe that your reputation goes down after you're featured on the cover (Conjunction Error)
|
|
|
Hot Hand Phenomenon
|
Basketball, illusion of streak, (Conjunction Error)
|
|
|
Gambler's Fallacy
|
Thinking that some superstitions help us gain control over things.
|
|
|
Availability Heuristic
|
using the ease of remembering examples or amount of info you can quickly remember to make an inference. (i.e. we're scared of flying than driving a car, even though the car is more danerous. Airplane crashes just get more attention.
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: SCHWARTZ
|
Focuses on Availabilty Heuristic. IV: Think of either 6 or 12 times you've been assertive. DV: Rate how assertive you are. Results: The people who had to come up with 12 examples of being assertiveness thought themselves to be less assertive people because they couldn't think of enough examples.
|
|
|
Simulation Heuristic
|
How easily we can imagine something happening influences our reactions to it. (i.e. bronze medalists are happier than the silver medalists because the silver medalists engaged in more counter-factual thinking "I was closer to gold")
|
|
|
Anchoring/Adjustment
|
failing to adjust sufficiently away from initial anchor, the most anchor we have is ourselves
|
|
|
Controlled Thinking
|
Thinking with motivation and effort
|
|
|
Counterfactual Thinking
|
imagining alternative that are normal but different than the actual (usually unexpected) outcome
|
|
|
What are the two types of counterfactual thinking?
|
Downward (used to make you feel better, it could be worse); Upward (used to prepare for the future, next time I'll just study more)
|
|
|
Controlled Disbelieving
|
1. (auto) Initial acceptance of information. 2. (controlled) Assess truthfulness of accepted beliefs. 3. (controlled) Unaccept if necessary
|
|
|
Thought Suppression
|
the attempt to avoid thinking about something we would just as soon forget.
|
|
|
What's the process of Thought Suppression?
|
1. (auto) Monitoring: We search for evidence that the unwanted thought is about to pop-up. 2. (controlled) Inhibiting: conscious effort to distract oneself by finding something else to think about. A larger cognitive load will stop your inhibiting abilities.
|
|
|
What are the effects of Thought Suppression on the immune system?
|
Decreases. More suppressing, less immune system.
|
|
|
Rebound effect
|
unwanted thoughts occur at a higher rate than before attempts to suppress
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: MACRAE ET AL
|
Focuses on Thought Suppression. Do attempts to suppress thoughts about stereotypes results in an increase in the frequency of stereotypes post-suppression? Stage 1: Asked to write about typical day in the life of a skinhead. IV: Suppress vs. Control. DV: Frequency of stereotype use. Stage 2: Participant told "You will now meet this skinhead". DV: How far will participant sit from the skinhead's backpack? Results: Suppressor's sat further away. Conclusion: Suppression influences thoughts and behavior.
|
|
|
Person Perception
|
How we view an individual
|
|
|
Implicit Personality Theory
|
we make quick inferences of what someone is like from observable info (someone typing petting a dog is nice). We infer enduring qualities in people from brief exposures.
|
|
|
Categorization
|
we put people in categories immediately
|
|
|
What are the 4 major categories we immediately put people in?
|
gender, race, age, social class
|
|
|
Benefits and Consequences of Categorization
|
Stereotyping, Saves energy and speed info processing
|
|
|
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
|
Fiske, between groups and individuals. We perceive whether an individual is part of a group or an individual. Based off motivated and effort.
|
|
|
Positivity Bias
|
most events are evaluated as "above average". (i.e. 97% of students rated their professors favorably, positive words are more common words)
|
|
|
Pollyanna Principle
|
people feel better when around good things
|
|
|
Negativity Effect
|
negative info weighed more heavily than positive (negative traits are more unusual due to Pollyanna Principle and are therefore more distinctive and memorable)
|
|
|
Averaging Principle
|
how to good and bad differ per person
|
|
|
Halo Effect
|
if a person is attractive, we assume he/she's intelligent
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: KURTZBURG
|
Focuses on Halo Effect. Jail Inmates with Facial Disfigurements were either given plastic surgery or not. Those two groups were then either given counseling or not given counseling. However, counseling made no difference. The group that got plastic surgery were more likely to get parole.
|
|
|
Attribution Theories
|
the study of how we infer the causes of other people's behavior. Usually implicit and automatic. Always ask why?
|
|
|
Dispositional/Internal Attribution
|
something about the person caused the behavior
|
|
|
Situational/External Attribution
|
outside influences caused the behavior
|
|
|
Attribution Theories with Relationships
|
internal attributions for partner's positive traits, external attributions for partner's negative traits. Opposite in unhappy marriage
|
|
|
Correspondent Inference Theory
|
Attribution Theory. 1. Social Desirability of Behavior (that if the behavior isn't socially acceptable, it's internal), 2. Individual's Choice (if the person has a choice, internal), 3. Individual's Social Roles (when an individual is doing something outside their social role, it's internal)
|
|
|
Fundamental Attribution Error
|
we attribute others' behaviors to their general dispositions
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: FIDEL CASTRO
|
Focuses on Fundamental Attribution Error. IV1: Pro or Anti-Castro Paper. IV2: Told whether forced or freely chosen. DV: Does writer like/dislike Castro, according to observers. Results: Participants didn't really take into consideration if the writer was forced to write essay or not. Participant assumed pro/anti esay writer were actually pro/anti.
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: QUIZMASTER STUDY
|
Focuses on Fundamental Attribution Error. IV1: Participant assigned to be quizmaster, contestant, or observer. Quizmaster thought of 10 hard questions. Quizmaster asks contestant questions. Observer rates participant/Quizmaster's intelligence. Results: Quizmaster rated intelligence equal to contestant. Contestant thought Quizmaster > Contestant. Observer thought Quizmaster > Contestant
|
|
|
Why does the Fundamental Attribution Error exist?
|
We underestimate the impact of the situation; we focus on the person, which is perceptually salient; anchoring and adjustment heuristic
|
|
|
Process of Fundamental Attribution Error
|
1. We made an automatic, internal attribution. 2. If we have time/instruction, we'll consider situations & possiblities
|
|
|
Culture-Specific aspect of Fundamental Attribution
|
Western countries, more likely to make dispositional explanations for behavior
|
|
|
Spotlight Effect
|
When we think everyone is looking at us-- this happens because we're aware that people judge. Many times, however, we overestimate it. (i.e. Barry Manilow t-shirt)
|
|
|
Transparency
|
We think that everyone can notice small changes in us and read us a lot better than in reality.
|
|
|
Why do Spotlight and Transparecy exist more in Western cultures?
|
We have a strong ego-centric bias where the world revolves around us and we expect people to understand us from our own perspective. Eastern cultures are more community-oriented.
|
|
|
Actor-Observer Difference
|
Actors give more weight to external causes than obervers. We explain our own behavior in situational terms. Perceptual salience plays a role; actors and observers have different information to base judgement on.
|
|
|
Self-Serving Attributions
|
We have a tendency to take credit for success and deny responsibility for our failure. (i.e. break-ups)
|
|
|
CASE STUDY: FOOTBALL GAME BLAME
|
Focuses on Self-Serving Attributions. In a systematic analysi of newspaper articles descirbing 33 major baseball and football games, the players were more likely to have internal explanations during victories, and external for defeats.
|
|
|
Positive Illusions
|
We evaluate ourselves more favorably that others. Most of us think we're better than average either in leadership (98%), ability to get along with others (100%), etc. This occurs because we remember positive, not negative information, about ourselves.
|
|
|
When are we more accurate in our thinking?
|
Mildly depressed individuals and individuals with increased responsibility think in a more controlled manner.
|
|
|
Self-affirmation Theory
|
Threats to our self-worth make us emphasize other aspects of ourselves
|
|
|
Terror-management Theory
|
You talk yourself up after terror
|
|
|
Self-evaluation Maintanence Model
|
When someone close does well, we look at ourselves and our self-worth
|
|
|
False Consensus Effect
|
We exaggerate how common our own behavior and opinions are. It makes us feel normal/good. Our opinions are salient to us, we seek similar people. (smokers think there are many smokers out there)
|
|
|
False Uniqueness Effect
|
Opposite of False Consensus Effect. If we are doing something very good, we like to think that we're unique in our accomplishments. (donating money, getting good grades)
|
|
|
Egocentric Bias
|
We exaggerate our own contribution to shared activities (i.e. Husband/Wife contribution to chores. Total % > 100%)
|
|
|
Examples of non-verbal Behavior
|
In addition to listeners, we look at vocal tone, body language, etc. This is done through facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, body positions, etc.
|
|
|
Darwin's approach to facial expression of emotion
|
Believed that all humans encode or express the basic emotions in the same way and all humans can decode with equal accuracy. According to evolutionary throy, we're best at seeing anger.
|
|
|
What are the 6 emotions that Ekman believed we can all recognize?
|
1. Happy, 2. Sad, 3. Angry, 4. Scared, 5.Surprised, 6.Disgusted. Small children and blind children use these facial expression.
|
|
|
Visual Channel
|
Facial expressions, gestures, positions, etc.
|
|
|
Paralinguistic Channel
|
Pitch, rate, delays of speech to assess behavior
|
|
|
Are we better at detecting deception or is it chance?
|
Most people's ability to detect deception is only slightly better than change. People are, however, trained to detect it.
|
