Social Psych Lec 1

Front 1

Vokart et al., (1983)

Back 1

-Social Isolation Psychological problems
-Naturalistic observation
-Found: Hallucination, fear, depression, suicidal tendencies

Front 2

Kiecolt-Glaser et al., (1992)

Back 2

-Social Isolation health problems
-Naturalistic observation
-Found: adverse health and well-being comparable to smoking/being obese/high blood pressure

Front 3

Schacter (1959)

Back 3

Social isolation similarity
-Laboratory experiment
-Different participants

Front 4

Naturalistic observation

Back 4

Natural setting

Front 5

Archival Studies

Back 5

Archives/records

Front 6

Surveys

Back 6

e.g silent treatment

Front 7

Experimental methods

Back 7

Involve attempts to measure or records thoughts, feelings, through laboratory

Front 8

Social facilitation Tripplett (1898)

Back 8

Contradictory findings

-Social facilitation vs Social inhibition

Front 9

Zajonc (1965)

Back 9

Mere presence theory

-Explained interference and inhibition
-Increased arousal
-Caused social facilitation with easy/well learned tasks
-Caused social inhibition with hard/poorly learned tasks

Front 10

Tripplett

Back 10

Proved mere presence with cockroach maze
AROUSAL FACILITATES THE DOMINANT RESPONSE

Front 11

Evaluation Apprehension theory
Cotrell, wack et al.,

Back 11

Jogger ran faster with confederate

Front 12

Social Loafing

Back 12

-Working less effectively in a group than alone

Front 13

Alan Ingham

Back 13

Tug o war, proved social loafing
-less force exerted when thought they were in a group

Front 14

Reasons for loafing

Back 14

-Evaluation potential
-Dispensability of effort
-Matched effect

Front 15

Factors which effect social loafing

Back 15

-Gender, more prevalent in males
-Boring task
-Relationship within group

Front 16

Conformity

Back 16

People tend to confrom
-Milgram et al., Found: 4% copied one person looking, 40% copied 15 people

Front 17

Solomon Asch

Back 17

-Confederate line matching

Front 18

Informational Social response

Back 18

- Conform because we are willing to accept others judgement as correct

Front 19

Normative Social influence

Back 19

- Conform to avoid disapproval or gain approval

Front 20

Unanimity

Back 20

-When the group is not unanimous there is 80% less conformity

Front 21

Bystander effect

Back 21

- Kitty Genevese
- When the presence of others inhibits social influence

Front 22

Intercom seizure

Back 22

-90% likely to help alone
-60% likely with 1 other
-50% with 2 others
-40% with 3 others
-30% with 4 others

Front 23

Smoke room

Back 23

75% chance of leaving alone
38% with 2 strangers
10% with 2 confeds ignoring the smoke

Front 24

Pluralistic ignorance

Back 24

-Diffusion of responsibility
-Ambiguity
-Mood
-Victim characteristics

Front 25

Deindividuation

Back 25

-Arousal + Anonymity

Front 26

Mann (1981) Jumper suicides

Back 26

10 out of 21 people would yell jump when:

- Part of a large crows
- It was dark
- Victim and crowd are distant

Front 27

Deindividuation occurs;

Back 27

When there is arousal and anonymity which causes reduction of normal constraints against deviant behaviour

Front 28

Zimbardo believed deindividuation occurs because of arousal and anonymity and is always bad

Back 28

- 2 cars
- big and small city
- both ransacked
- small city zimbardo had to start the damage

Front 29

Laboratory deindividuation

Back 29

-electric shocks
-put people in outfits
-kkk shocked more
nurses shocked less than non deindividuated people
found: deindividuation is not always negative

Front 30

Gergen, gergen and burk (1973)

Back 30

-people in dark room 1 hour
- love intimacy
-80% felt sexual arousal
light room was boring
-when anonymity was removed (meet people after the hour in dark room) was sam effects as light room

Front 31

People are highly obedient

Back 31

-gave severe shocks
-felt bad/disturbed
reasons
-novelty, pre-existing perceptions of authority
-immediacy of experimenter
-when experimenter was out of room obedience dropped highly

Front 32

But minor individuals make a big difference

Back 32

-Recreated aschers line matching study
-With 1 confederate disagreeing with group people were much more likely to object
-if someone agreed to shock the man, so would the participant (obedience increased)
-if someone objected obedience would greatly decrease

Front 33

Attributions and stereotypes - causes

Back 33

-Consensus: extent to which others react the same way to the same stimuli
-Consistency: the extent an individual reacts over time
-Distinctiveness: The extent to which the same response occurs to different stimuli

Front 34

Fundamental Attribution error

Back 34

Tendency for observers to underestimate the impact of the situation and overestimate the impact of personal disposition

Front 35

Actor - Observor bias

Back 35

We attribute our own behaviour to external (situational) causes, but we
attribute the behaviour of others to internal (dispositional) causes

Front 36

Attractiveness bias

Back 36

people are more forgiving of attractive people

Front 37

Cognitive heuristics

Back 37

A tendency to overestimate the probability that an event will occur based on the availability of examples

e.g: which occurs more - words that start with r, or have r as the third letter: because it's easier to think of examples of words that start with r

Front 38

attitudes can effect behaviour

Back 38

women working in an office become more male

Front 39

cognitive dissonance can occur between action and behaviour

Back 39

cafes served asians people despite saying they wouldn't