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;
59 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Describe three factors that influence compliance.
How is compliance different from obedience? |
SITUATIONAL FACTORS
- Group size (↑ people = ↑ conformity) - Group cohesiveness and topic relevance (↑ cohesiveness = ↑ conformity, especially when topic is important to group) - Social support/dissenter present (↑ support = ↓ strength of norm) - Task difficulty (easy = ↓ conformity; hard = ↑ conformity) PERSONAL FACTORS - Self-awareness (public = ↑ conformity; private = ↓ conformity) - Need for individualism (↓ conformity) - Desire for personal control - Gender CULTURAL FACTORS - Individualism vs. collectivism COMPLIANCE: performing an action in response to a direct request. OBEDIENCE: performing an action in response to a direct order. |
COMPLIANCE AND OBEDIENCE
|
|
|
What is the anchoring and adjustment heuristic?
What compliance strategy does this relate to? |
ANCHORING AND ADJUSTMENT HEURISTIC: tendency to be biased toward initial info that you received when making your judgments.
THAT'S-NOT-ALL STRATEGY: make a large request and then immediately discount it or offer a bonus Example: when you don't know how much a cupcake would sell for, you anchor at the price that is given (say $1.25), then you think it's a great deal when they reduce the price to $1, when in reality, it was only worth $1) |
COMPLIANCE AND OBEDIENCE
|
|
|
How does Bem's self-perception theory help explain the foot-in-the-door technique?
|
FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR TECHNIQUE: get someone to agree to a small request and then make a larger request.
BEM'S THEORY: we infer who we are from observing our own behaviors. (ex. Asked people to put small sign in their yard. If they agreed, they were more likely to put a bigger sign in their yard later on) |
COMPLIANCE AND OBEDIENCE
|
|
|
Describe reciprocal concessions and perceptual contrast in relation to the door-in-the-face technique.
|
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE TECHNIQUE: make a large request to someone and, after they refuse, make a smaller request (ex. ask mom for $100 and, when she says no, ask for $70. She says no again so you ask for $50 and she says, "ok fine.")
RECIPROCAL CONCESSIONS → both compromise (ex. both you and mom eventually agree on $50) PERCEPTUAL CONTRAST → contrast between first request and second request (ex. $100 vs. $50) |
COMPLIANCE AND OBEDIENCE
|
|
|
Which compliance technique are car dealerships famous for?
Why does this strategy work? |
LOW-BALL TECHNIQUE: get someone to commit to an unrealistically low price and then, before deal is done, the "mistaken" price is discovered, the sale is denied, and a higher price is substituted (ex. buying a car → get invested in it because it's such a great deal → price changes → much more likely to buy car anyway)
|
COMPLIANCE AND OBEDIENCE
|
|
|
Describe Milgram's classic study on obedience.
Were the participants “teachers” or “learners”? Name 2 common objections to this study. |
Study measured willingness of participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.
Method: teachers asked learners questions and shocked them, with increasing levels of voltage, every time they got one wrong. Goal: see how long people continued to follow directions. LEARNER = confederate faking pain TEACHER = subject who thinks they are shocking the learner EXPERIMENTER = person ordering teacher to shock learner Expectation was that no one was going to do it; the fact that almost everyone did says a lot about how the Holocaust happened. COMMON OBJECTIONS: 1) Ethics (unethical to make people think they could have killed someone.) 2) Generalizability (can the results be generalized to other contexts?) |
COMPLIANCE AND OBEDIENCE
|
|
|
Describe 4 things that influence obedience in Milgram's study.
|
PHYSICAL PROXIMITY
- When learner and teacher are in the same room, obedience ↓ - When learner and teacher are in different rooms, obedience ↑ PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY - When teachers believed that experimenter was responsible, obedience ↑ - When teachers believed that they were fully responsible, no obedience REBELLION: the more people around you who refuse, the more obedience ↓ LOCATION - When study was performed at Yale, obedience ↑ - When study was performed somewhere sketchy, obedience ↓ |
COMPLIANCE AND OBEDIENCE
|
|
|
Describe administrative obedience and a study that supports this research.
How does administrative obedience differ from Milgram’s research on obedience? |
ADMINISTRATIVE OBEDIENCE: conforming to roles that result in psychological harm to another (psychological harm vs. Milgram's physical harm.)
JOB SUITABILITY TEST - Person comes to interview for a job they badly need. Test admins ordered, in research project context, to be mean and make applicant nervous. - 92% of people were obedient, even though by doing this they were "costing someone a job." |
COMPLIANCE AND OBEDIENCE
|
|
|
What is the definition of a group?
|
Several interdependent people who have emotional ties and interact on a regular basis to achieve a group goal (ex. a bunch of people waiting for the bus ≠ group)
|
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
Why do people work in groups rather than by themselves?
|
Sometimes people perform better when in a group (ex. if you're not good at math, you'll probably do better if you work on a math project with a group.)
|
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
What is social loafing?
Is it always negative? |
SOCIAL LOAFING: tendency to exert less effort when working in a group than when working alone.
NOT always a bad thing: - People who are more competent at a certain task than others will put in more effort to make up for the other group members. - People who are less competent at a task than others will have to work extra hard to be as good as the others (ex. bench warmers) |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
Diffusion of responsibility is one of the main reasons for social loafing. What is it?
|
Belief that when multiple people are present in a situation, you are less personally responsible for the events that occur (ex. if someone is hit by a car, ↑ likelihood of cops being called if one person is present vs. multiple people)
|
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
How do you reduce social loafing?
How does dividing a group project into pieces affect the effort contributed by each member? |
Judge people's individual efforts while they work on a group task.
Divide group project into pieces = ↓ social loafing |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
How does social facilitation and social inhibition influence performance on a task?
|
SOCIAL FACILITATION: occurs when people perform better in the presence of others than when they're alone (ex. good at pool → people watching → ↑ performance)
SOCIAL INHIBITION: occurs when people perform worse in the presence of others than when they're alone (ex. bad at pool → people watching → ↓ performance) |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
When are you most likely to see social inhibition and when are you most likely to see social facilitation effects?
|
Hard task → SOCIAL INHIBITION
Easy task → SOCIAL FACILITATION |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
Which three explanations account for social facilitation and social inhibition?
How does explanation 3 relate to explanations 1 and 2? (Hint: theory) |
1) Mere presence/general arousal
2) Evaluation apprehension 3) Distraction DISTRACTION-CONFLICT THEORY: ↑ arousal can come from tendency to pay attention to audience and task, facilitating performance. |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
What was the first published social psychology experiment and what caused it to be designed?
How does the example used in class show social facilitation? Be able to describe this experiment. |
After noticing that bicyclists in a race rode faster when people were watching than when they were alone, guy designed experiment in which children had to wind line on a fishing reel. Results were the same as with bicyclists.
Example: when cockroaches were surrounded by other cockroaches, they moved through a maze faster than when they did the maze alone. |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
What is the definition of deindividuation?
What are the two causes? What are some examples? |
DEINDIVIDUATION: the loss of individual identity and a loosening of the normal inhibitions we have about engaging in behavior that's inconsistent with internal standards.
CAUSES 1) Reduced self-awareness 2) Conformity to group norms EXAMPLES: 1) A bowl of halloween candy is left on someone's doorstep with a note that says, "take one." When kids are trick-or-treating in a group, they're more likely to take more than one, but when they're alone they're more likely to take only one. 2) If you could become invisible for a day, most people would engage in non-pro-social behavior. |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
Define choice shift.
Why does this happen? |
CHOICE SHIFT: tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than individual decisions.
Result of group polarization. |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
What is group polarization?
How does social comparison and mutual persuasion contribute to group polarization? |
GROUP POLARIZATION: group discussion produces exaggeration of members' initial attitudes.
SOCIAL COMPARISON: normative influence → concern about how we appear to others. MUTUAL PERSUASION: informational influence (ex. change compass rating from 3 to 10 when someone tells you that there's no magnetic field on the moon.) |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
What was the point of the “Lost on the Moon” activity?
Were group or individual decisions more accurate according to NASA? Why did this occur? |
Demonstrated group polarization.
Group decisions more accurate because we adjust our initial thinking when we hear ideas from others (ex. we changed our rating for the compass when someone told us that there's no magnetic field on the moon) |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
What are the stages of group decision making?
|
1) ORIENTATION STAGE: identify task and strategy to use.
2) DISCUSSION STAGE: gather info, identify possible solutions and evaluate them. 3) DECISION STAGE 4) IMPLEMENTATION STAGE: carry out and evaluate decision. |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
What is groupthink?
What causes groupthink? (CICD) |
GROUPTHINK: a deterioration of critical testing, analysis, and evaluation of ideas resulting from group's excessive desire to reach consensus (ex. Challenger disaster)
CAUSES: - Strong cohesiveness (strong "WE" feeling) - Isolation (ex. from types of info) - Closed leadership style (independent member) - Decision pressure (ex. limited amount of time) |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
What are the effects of groupthink?
|
1) Close-mindedness
2) ↑ conformity pressure 3) ILLUSION OF INVULNERABILITY: belief that group is so competent/powerful, etc., it cannot make mistakes. |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
What is a social dilemma?
What are the three types? |
SOCIAL DILEMMA: any situation in which the most rewarding short-term choice for an person will ultimately cause negative consequences for the group as a whole.
TYPES: 1) RESOURCE DILEMMA: depletion of resources serves short-term goals but causes long-term problems (ex. people allowed to let one cow graze in field. If someone puts out more than one cow they receive benefits, but everyone shares damage to commons. If everybody does this, the common will no longer be a viable resource.) 2) FREE-RIDER PROBLEM: using a public good, but not contributing to it (ex. listening to NPR but not donating money to them) 3) PRISONER'S DILEMMA: mixed motive situations -- cooperation vs. competition (ex. point activity) |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
What is the Prisoner’s Dilemma?
What did the example in class conclude about what the two prisoners should have done? How does this tie in with the bonus point activity? |
PRISONER'S DILEMMA: demonstrates why two people might not cooperate even if it's in both their best interests to do so.
Example: - If both prisoners confess, they each get a short sentence. - If one confesses and the other does not, the confessor will get a much shorter sentence while the other will get a long sentence. - If they're both selfish and confess, they'll get longer sentences than if they'd stayed quiet. Bonus point activity: if everyone had picked 5 points, the entire class would've gotten points, but since so many people picked 15 points, we all got nothing. |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
How do people resolve social dilemmas?
Which one is the best? |
1) EDUCATION
2) GROUP IDENTIFICATION 3) COOPERATION (best resolution to social dilemmas!) |
GROUP BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
Intimacy is sharing that which is inmost with others. What does intimacy involve?
|
SELF-EXPANSION: including another person in your self-concept.
|
INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
|
|
|
Describe the 4 basic attachment styles and the qualities associated with each.
|
1) SECURE: ↑ interpersonal trust and ↑ self-esteem
- Perceives others as trustworthy and loving - Handles conflict constructively - Fosters intimacy 2) PREOCCUPIED: ↑ interpersonal trust and ↓ self-esteem - Perceives others as trustworthy and loving, but has negative view of self as not worthy of being loved - Seeks out relationships, but obsessed that love won't be reciprocated 3) DISMISSING AVOIDANT: ↓ interpersonal trust and ↑ self-esteem - Have little faith in other people - Uncomfortable with intimacy - Confident, but compulsively self-reliant 4) FEARFUL AVOIDANT: ↓ interpersonal trust and ↓ self-esteem - Have little faith in other people - Have a low opinion of themselves - Expect to be rejected by others |
INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
|
|
|
How do relationships typically develop?
Define disclosure reciprocity and depenetration. |
Develop through:
1) SELF-DISCLOSURE: revealing personal information about oneself to others 2) SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY: explains how self-disclosure develops into friendships and close relationships DISCLOSURE RECIPROCITY: norm in which people match each others level of self-disclosure DEPENETRATION: process by which people emotionally withdraw and disengage from relationship |
INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
|
|
|
Do opposites attract?
What is the matching hypothesis? |
NOT REALLY...
MATCHING HYPOTHESIS: people tend to be attracted to others who are similar to them. |
INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
|
|
|
Can love be measured empirically and studied? If yes, how?
|
Love CANNOT be measured empirically or studied as a concept. However, it can be studied if you create an operational definition (ex. if you make love = ↑ heart rate)
|
INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
|
|
|
Describe the differences between superficial and developed friendships.
|
SUPERFICIAL FRIENDSHIPS: based on rewards/exchange (ex. basis for me and Matt's friendship is that we take notes for each other in psych)
DEVELOPED FRIENDSHIPS: based on rewards and mutual concern (ex. boyfriend and girlfriend) |
INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
|
|
|
What is excitation transfer theory?
Be able to describe the bridge study. |
EXCITATION TRANSFER THEORY: arousal produced by one stimulus can be added to the arousal produced by another stimulus.
BRIDGE STUDY: men walked across either a scary bridge or a secure bridge, with an attractive female research assistant at the end of each. Found that the men crossing scary bridge attributed their arousal to research assistant and were more likely to call her after study than those crossing secure bridge. |
INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
|
|
|
Describe the differences between passionate and companionate love.
Can companionate love exist between close friends as well as lovers? |
PASSIONATE LOVE: a state of intense longing to be with another person.
- Exists early on in relationship - Idealize partner - Can be produced/enhanced by excitation transfer COMPANIONATE LOVE: the love and affection we feel for a person whose life is deeply intertwined with our own. - Can exist between close friends as well as lovers - No longer idealize partner |
INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
|
|
|
Do men and women differ in their experience of love? If so, describe how.
|
MEN
- More likely to be romantic - More likely to fall in love at first sight - More likely to fall in and out of love faster WOMEN - More likely to break up - More cautious |
INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
|
|
|
What factors influence relationship survival and happiness? Be able to describe them!
|
EQUITY THEORY: people are most satisfied in relationship when ratio between rewards and costs is similar for both partners.
SOCIAL SUPPORT: ? COMMUNICATION: constructive arguing and perspective-taking PARTNER-ENHANCING BIAS: tendency to attribute partner's positive behaviors to internal causes and their negative behaviors to external causes. |
Social support??
|
|
|
When heterosexual men and women place personal ads, are they searching for the same things?
Do they advertise the same things? |
MEN: youth and attractiveness
WOMEN: wealth and status (both advertise what the opposite sex is looking for) |
INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
|
|
|
Studies show that men and women deal with breakups very differently. Explain how.
|
MEN: usually distract themselves and don't really deal with feelings (ex. go to the gym)
WOMEN: cope more directly with issues themselves (through social support, talking to friends, discussing the relationship, etc.) |
INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
|
|
|
Researchers struggle to agree on the definition of aggression. In the book, aggression is defined as “any form of behavior that is intended to harm or injure some person, oneself, or an object.”
What is the key part of this definition? |
INTENT!!!
|
AGGRESSION
|
|
|
What are the 2 types of aggression we talked about in class?
Provide examples of each. |
INSTRUMENTAL AGGRESSION: intentional use of harmful behavior so that one can achieve some other goal (ex. beating someone up to get their wallet)
HOSTILE AGGRESSION: intentional use of harmful behavior, triggered by anger, in which the goal is simply to cause injury or death to victim (ex. beating someone up because they're gay) |
AGGRESSION
|
|
|
What are the 2 factors responsible for aggressive behavior?
|
BIOLOGICAL (inheritance, hormonal activity, etc.)
SOCIAL/SITUATIONAL: situations can lead people to behave aggressively (ex. Stanford Prison experiment) |
AGGRESSION
|
|
|
The Stanford Prison Experiment is an example of when good people act aggressively in a bad situation.
Who conducted this experiment? What were participants expected to do? What outcome did this study have on the psychological community? |
- Conducted by Zimbardo.
- Students chosen to play roles of both guards and prisoners and live in mock prison. - They adapted to their roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted → led to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. |
AGGRESSION
|
|
|
How does the frustration-aggression hypothesis explain aggression?
What is displaced aggression? What criticisms do you have of this theory? |
FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS
1) Frustration ALWAYS leads to aggression 2) EVERY act of aggression can be traced to some previous frustration 3) Aggression leads to catharsis DISPLACED AGGRESSION: taking out your aggression against someone other than person who caused frustration (ex. more people lose their jobs, child abuse ↑) CRITICISMS 1) Frustration is NOT root of all aggression 2) Catharsis does not follow aggression |
AGGRESSION
|
|
|
How does the cognitive-neoassociationist model explain aggression?
What are some examples? Do you have any criticisms of this theory? |
COGNITIVE-NEOASSOCIATIONIST MODEL: aversive events produce negative affect, which makes one more likely to behave aggressively
- Based on cognitive priming (ex. flashing picture of gun on screen, even if it's registered subconsciously, can trigger aggression) - Interpretation of situation influences whether we aggress (ex. if someone from your own team hits you with ball, you assume it was an accident vs. other team hits you with ball, you assume it was on purpose) - Aggressive cues can trigger aggression (ex. simply seeing picture of gun) CRITICISM: aggressive cues don't ALWAYS trigger aggressive behavior. |
AGGRESSION
|
|
|
What is social learning theory?
How does Maggie Simpson exhibit effects of observational learning? |
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY: social behavior is learned by observing and imitating the actions of others (influenced by rewards and punishments)
Example: Maggie Simpson watches violent behavior on TV and them imitates it and hurts Homer. |
AGGRESSION
|
|
|
By the age of 16, we witness 13,000 murders on TV. Does this have an effect on our society?
|
YES, violence in movies, on TV and in video games affects our behavior. Studies show that it does make us more aggressive.
|
AGGRESSION
|
|
|
What are the strategies for reducing aggression?
|
1) PUNISHMENT (must be prompt, strong, and consistent)
2) INDUCING INCOMPATIBLE EMOTIONAL RESPONSES (ex. introducing humor into a situation in which someone's angry can reduce likelihood of violent behavior) 3) TEACHING NON-AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES (ex. social modeling, social skills training, apologies, etc.) |
AGGRESSION
|
|
|
What are three possible determinants of sexual aggression?
|
1) Watching pornography
2) Misinterpreting sexual intentions 3) Anger provocation |
AGGRESSION
|
|
|
Prosocial behavior is defined as voluntary behavior that is carried out to benefit another person.
Describe the 2 types of helping behavior we discussed and give an example of when someone might engage in each type. |
EGOTISTIC HELPING: ultimate goal of helper is to ↑ their own welfare (ex. helping an old woman cross the street to impress your crush)
ALTRUISTIC HELPING: ultimate goal of helper is to ↑ another's welfare without expecting anything in return (ex. helping an old woman cross the street because she needs help) |
HELPING BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
Does gender influence helping behavior?
If so, what type of situations are men or women more likely to help in? |
Men → heroic situations (ex. rescuing someone from a burning building)
Women → nurturing situations (ex. helping an elderly woman with her groceries) |
HELPING BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
The incident that prompted researchers to study helping behavior was the Kitty Genovese murder. How many of her neighbors heard her being attacked and how many called the police or tried to help?
What is the explanation for their behavior? |
38 people witnessed attack but not a single person called the police.
Explanation: diffusion of responsibility |
HELPING BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
What is the bystander intervention model and what are the 5 steps it suggests a bystander must do?
|
BYSTANDER INTERVENTION MODEL: bystanders decide to intervene in an emergency by going through a 5 step decision-making process.
1) Notice that something is wrong 2) Decide that problem calls for intervention 3) Decide to take responsibility for helping 4) Determine the appropriate helping response 5) HELP them! |
HELPING BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
If you witness an emergency situation, are you more likely to act if an authority figure is nearby? Describe why or why not.
|
NO. If an authority figure is present, you assume that they are more responsible than you are (ex. when someone falls down in the subway and a "doctor" is present, people assume they don't have to help)
|
HELPING BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
Describe pluralistic ignorance and the key study that examined this concept.
|
We look to others to give us info about how to behave in an emergency situation if we don't know what the appropriate response should be (ex. smoke-filled room study)
|
HELPING BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
What concept did the seizure study explore?
|
Diffusion of responsibility
|
HELPING BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
What is the cost-reward model?
How does it shape bystander intervention? |
COST-REWARD MODEL: helping is determined by emotional arousal and an analysis of the costs and rewards associated with helping.
AROUSAL: ↑ emergency = ↑ arousal COSTS: personal risk and time REWARDS: feel good, recognition, and money |
HELPING BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
Describe 3 social norms that influence whether or not we decide to help others.
Provide examples. |
1) RECIPROCITY: people help in order to receive help later (ex. me and Matt taking psych notes for each other)
2) SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: we should help others who are in need and who depend on us, regardless of the recipient's worthiness and without being rewarded (ex. liberalism) 3) SOCIAL JUSTICE: we should help only when we believe that others deserve our assistance (ex. conservatism) |
HELPING BEHAVIOR
|
|
|
Studies suggest we are not equal opportunity helpers. Who are we more likely to help?
Explain why we are more likely to help certain types of people. |
We are more likely to help people that are similar to us and people who deserve our help because we prefer providing ingroup help over outgroup help.
|
HELPING BEHAVIOR
|
