Social Psychology

Front 1

Heider (1958)

Back 1

pionered what he refered to as 'common sense' psychology.

People here act as amateur scientists to understand the behaviour of others.

situational and dispositional attributions

we have a need to control and understand our environment.

heider didn't however explain HOW we make these attributions. we need other models

Front 2

Jones and Davis (1965)

Back 2

Correspondent inference model.

behaviours that others do are related to underlying behavioural dispositions.

we take information from the social context to make these attributions.

Jones and Davis suggested that we are more likely to make a dispositional attribution if
1. behaviour is not socially desirable
2. the behaviour IS freely chosen.
3. the behaviour is not part of a social role.

this theory explains cases where we make dispositional attributions but doesn't explain why we don't make situational ones - we need the other two theories!

also only explains our attributions when we have info from just one situation

Front 3

Kelley (1967)

Back 3

covariation model of attribution

this model explains how information from multiple situation leads to different attributions

we take the information from multiple situations and use it like a scientist would.
the theory assumes that attributions are made in a very rational and logical way

consistency
consensus
distinctiveness.

variations to these lead to different attributions.

for example...

exam, low consistency, high consensus and high distinctiveness shows that the exam was hard - situational attribution

consensus - did others react similarly
distinctiveness - did the person usually react the same to other stimuli
consistency - is the behaviour stable over time?

don't forget multiple sufficient/necessary and discounting and augmenting.

Front 4

Weiner (1985)

Back 4

dimensions of causal attribution.

relates to achievement based attributions.

internal - external(the locus of control
stable - unstable(whether it changes with time)
controllable - uncontrollable

Causal attributions determine affective reactions to success and failure

Achievement can be attributed to (1) effort, (2) ability, (3) level of task difficulty, or (4) luck.

Front 5

Jones and Harris (1973)

Back 5

The correspondant inference bias

tendency to attribute behaviour to an actors dispositional charectorists

this was found through a study that showed when individuals were asked to read either pro or anti Castro essays. even if told that the individual had no choice but to write a pro-castro essay they still rated the individual as more pro-castro.

This suggests a bias towards making dispositional attributions

Front 6

Ross et al (1977)

Back 6

Another study to show the effect of the correspondant inference bias.

Quiz show experiemnt. Even though the obsevers knew that the questionare had make up the questions they still were more likely to rate them as more knowledgable than the contestants on a quiz show

Front 7

Miller (1984)

Back 7

Shows that the correspondant inference bias was cross-cultural to some extent but largely based on CULTURE.

american vs indians.

Americans were much more likely to name trait charectoristics as the reasons for behaviour. while indians were more likely to name stituationl reasons for behaviours.

human cultures incorporate different assumptions about the nature of humans.

western cultures - autonomous

easten cultures - more related to their groups and interdependant.

Front 8

Doosje and branscomble (2006)

Back 8

an experiement in a cognitive bias similar to the correspondant inference bias

THE ULTIMATE ATTRIBUTION ERROR.

doosje and branscomble (2006) found that jewish people rated the german atrocities in ww2 more dispositionally than germans did.

this works the same as the correspondant inference bias. out-groups are rated more negatively and negative behaviours are seen as more stable.

Front 9

Gilbert and Malone (1995)

Back 9

Explains a two-process model which explains how attributional biases are created.

1) automatic dispositional attribution

2) If we have enough time and processing power we go back and think about whether there are any situational causes.

if we are distracted we DO NOT reach stage 2.

Front 10

Newman and Uceman, (1989)

Back 10

showed that step one of the two-step process of attribution is very quick and spontaneous.

Front 11

Gilbert, Pelham and Krull (1988) *

Back 11

Showed the effects of the extra cognitive demands of the second stage of the two-process model of attribution.

If participants were kept busy during attribution of a womans nervous behaviour they would be more likely to attribute it dispositionally combared to individuals who were not cognitively busy.

Front 12

Schactler and singer (1988)

Back 12

Suggested that how individuals explain their emotions is what causes attributions.

people search their enviroment and social cues for a cause of arousal.

two factor theory of emotion.

1. there must be physiological arousal.

2. an individual will look to the situation to explain causes of the arousal.

Front 13

Jones and Nisbett (1971)

Back 13

Actor-observer bias

compared to the correspondant inference bias which DOES NOT EXPLAIN interpretations of one's own behavior (i.e. only related to others behaviours);.

The actor-observer bias suggests that how we distribute others is more dispositional than attributions about our own behaviour.

Front 14

Storms (1973)

Back 14

The visual perspective study

participants who saw their own viewpoint attributed others' behaviour to dispositional causes while attributed themselves more situationally.

it has been explained using an availablility of information explanation. in the visual perspective study, individuals were shown others behaviour from their perspective. when this was done the level of bias decreased.

Front 15

Ross, Greene and House (1977)

Back 15

Study into the FALSE CONSENSUS BIAS (tendency to overestimate that we think people will agree with our own views)

ross et all found that when asked a question such as 'would you eat at a joes restaurant' both people who voted yes and people who voted no believed that others would be more likely to agree with them.

Front 16

Johnson et al (1964)

Back 16

yet another example of yes another bias (SELF SERVING ATTRIBUTIONS)

related to how we attribute our own successes and failures.

this experiment shows that teachers varied their attribution of the students performance depending on how much the student improved.

much improvement = good teacher (dispositional)
little improvement = student ability (situational)

Front 17

Miller and Ross (1975)

Back 17

3 reasons for why we have social biases.
DUE TO MISAPPLYING RATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF INFERENCE.

Front 18

Zuckerman(1979)

Back 18

Suggested that social biases may be motivational - in order to preserve self image.

Front 19

Lerner and Miller (1978)

Back 19

we have a bias to believe in a 'just world'.

this is why we tend to blame victims of crime - if victims are to blame it can't happen to me

Front 20

Asch (1946)

Back 20

some traits are more central than others when forming impressions

Front 21

Correll et al (2002)

Back 21

an example of stereotypes.

we believe black people to be more likely to have a gun when made to rapidly make a decision.

Schema are rapid and automatic!

Front 22

Hastorf and cantril (1954)

Back 22

an example of motivated processing.

In a football match, watchers of the game will tend to see their team commiting less infractions than they do.

this is self motivated interpretation of information

Front 23

Higgins, Rholes and Jones (1977)

Back 23

Priming effect - Recent experiences make info more available.

experiment asked "what do you think of donald?" the reactions depending on whether the positive or negative information was introduced first.

Front 24

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)

Back 24

Experiment related to self fulfilling prophecy.

Students took IQ test.

the teachers of the students were either told their students would bloom or be the same.

Teachers who were told that their students would bloom did signficantly better!!

Front 25

Dijksterhuis and Nordgren (2006)

Back 25

suggested that automatic processing of tasks actually produces better results!

dijsterhuis and nordgren found that individuals who didn't consciously think when choosing an appartment were more happy with the choice they made at the end.

Front 26

Devine (1989)

Back 26

showed my example the effect of the dual process model of social cognition.

low and high racial prejudice individuals both have equal knowledge of stereotypes it's just that low prejudice indivuals have the ability to supress their automatic thought.

Front 27

Zimbardo (1973)

Back 27

The stanford prison experiment - an example of how key components of a group are formed very quickly.

These key components are

Status and Roles.

Front 28

Reicher and Haslam (2006)

Back 28

Attempted to repeat the Milgram study.

found less agression that was reported by milgram but still reported to suffer high stress levels than those of prisoners suggesting that they cared more about their role.

Front 29

Aronson and Mills (1959)

Back 29

example of how the cohesiveness of groups is influenced by the effort required to join the group.

This experiment showed that when students were subject to embarressing initations into a group they were more likely to be attracted to the group even if the group was later found to be boring.

Front 30

Johnson and Downing (1979)

Back 30

deindividualisation is a side of effect of group membership.

loosening of normal constraints on behaviour when people can't be identified.

this experiment showed that when participants were made to wear a mask they delivered significantly higher shocks to other participants.

Front 31

Janis (1972)

Back 31

GROUP THINK - keeping the group cohesive is often seen as more important than the decisions the group makes.

This experiment showed that membership of a group lead to a type of thinking in which maintaining group cohisiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts, which may lead to a poor decision.

Front 32

Deutsch and krauss (1960)

Back 32

An example of a 'social dilemma'

This experiment found that threats are not a effective way of reducing conflict, and communication doesn't help if threats are made.

this is the truck paradigm experiment

Front 33

Steel and Aronson (1995)

Back 33

Stereotype threat

People act in a way that fulfills the stereotypical expectations of others.

This experiment showed that africans only performed worse on a maths test when it was described as 'real' instead of a 'lab exercise'.

This shows the effect that stereoypes have on our own behaviour.

The same effect was also shown when comparing men and womens maths skills.

Front 34

Cottrel and Neuberg (2005)

Back 34

they showed that the type of prejudice depends on the salient emotion used when thinking about it.

This difference in emotion then leads to different behaviour.

Front 35

Word, zanna and Cooper (1974)

Back 35

Self fulfilling prophecy - as well as stereotype threat, others also ellicit us to produce stereotyped behaviours.

this experiment showed that in a job interview scenario white interviewers behavied in a way that elicited poor performance from black interviewees.

The experiment also reversed the experiment, so black people became the interviewers and were asked to conduct the same behaviour. White people then also showed worse behaviour.

Front 36

Kaisaar and Milller (2001)

Back 36

CRYING DISCRIMINATION

in the experiment:

Participants asked to read a story about an african american student who got a bad grade.

half of the participants read that this student attributed the bad grade to discrimination.

the other half of the students read that she believed it was her own fault.

The results showed that when she put it down to discrimination, the participants rated her more negatively, regardless of whether the participants were prejudice.

Front 37

Brown et al (2000)

Back 37

TOKENISM.

tokenism refers to trivial positive actions towards victims of prejudice in order to not have to perform any meaningful action.

Brown showed that women in jobs who thought they got the job just because they were a women (aka tokenism) performed worse at their job.

Front 38

Jane Elliot (1968)

Back 38

A schoolteacher who divided her group in the 'superior' blue-eyes children and the lesser brown-eyed children. Out-groups were formed within a day.

Front 39

Tasfel and Turner (1979)

Back 39

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY

an attempt to find the psychological basis for intergroup discrimination.

SIT suggests that just having group membership is enough for producing in-group favouritism

Front 40

Sherif et al (1961)

Back 40

Robbers cave study.

boys at summer camp.

realistic conflict theory

Front 41

Allport (1954)

Back 41

THE ROLE OF THE SCAPEGOAT.

when frustrated/angry individuals tend to displace agression towards groups that are powerless and disliked

Front 42

Aronson (1971)

Back 42

By promoting equal status between races, prejudice can be lowered.

Front 43

Powell, branscombe and schmitt (2005)

Back 43

guilt lowers racism.

this experiment found that when white participants were asked to list all the advantages white people faced, collective guilt increased and racism decreased.

Front 44

Clark and Clark (1947)

Back 44

we are making progress,

african american children used to prefer to play with white doll as they were 'more pretty'. now aa children prefer black dolls.

Front 45

Goldberg (1968)

Back 45

we are making process in lowering discrimination.

students used to rate womens essay as lower than a essay written by men. now it is the same