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
|
List factors that moderate obedience |
Obedience; attitude/behavior change in response to direct/explicit order Cultural norms-- respect & obey authority Gradual request -- remain committed to action when costs change Shift in agency -- transfer responsibility -- proximity of victim -- proximity of authority -- legitimacy of authority -- social support |
|
|
Conformity
|
→ public conformity/compliance:outward changes in behaviour and attitudes expressed only in public with no changes in private
→ private conformity, conversion or acceptance:inward changes in attitudes and behaviour expressed privately |
|
|
Majority and Minority influence |
Private conformity or acceptance/conversionstrong source of social influence Hogg & Vaughn 2011 – process of social influence in which minorities change majority's attitudes Majority influence- public conformity or compliance |
|
|
Convergent/divergent theory Nemeth 1995 |
majority and minority influence prompt diff types of thinking: majority → if majority doesnt share views-stress and narrowed focus of attention – convergent thinking minority → if minority doesnt share view – no effect on stress/attention – divergent thinking |
|
|
Conversion theory Moscovici 1980 |
majority and minority influence operate via diff mechanisms → majority via comparison – focus on how majority is acting, engage in social comparison → processing of info shallow and passive → minority via validation- deep cognitive processing to examine validity of own beliefs and response of minority BUT -simplistic- unlikely that normative and information influence completely separate, or that minority influence always results in private conformity |
|
|
Informational, Normative & Referent Information Influence |
Deutsch & Gerard 1955- → informational influence;we want to be right- accuracy goalconfirm to obtain important information → normative influence;we want to be right (affiliation goal)conform to be accepted and avoid rejection RII→ Turner 1985 - emphasises importance of group belongingnessconform with group norm that defines us as group member |
|
|
Informational, Normative & Referent Information Influence 2 |
informational influence- when we arent clear about what we believe, accept response of others as evidence about reality normative influence- when dont have clear idea of own attitudes and dont match social normso conform to positive expectations of others to be accepted/achieve specific goals referent influence- when we are influenced by others due to psychological sense of belongingness to group – intragroup convergence |
|
|
Prejudice |
negative attitude toward members of specific social groups – cognitive/affective |
|
|
Discrimination |
negative behaviour directed towards members of social groups who are object of prejudice – behavioural |
|
|
3 Stages of Realistic Conflict Theory -- (summer camp study) Sherif & Sherif 1953 |
1. group formation – spontaneous group formation/suggestion of competition/social comparisons 2. friction phase – 'games', dramatic increase in derogation of other group (physical attack), interpersonal affiliations (best friend in outgroup) intergroup concerns 3. integration phase – superordinate goal, 2 groups worked together = decreased outgroup derogation |
|
|
Group formation |
Leads to ingroup/ outgroup favouritism/ bias |
|
|
3 limitations of Realistic Conflict Theory |
→ opportunity: contact works but only when opportunity for contactMartin 2006 – USA: the average white person lives in predominantly white neighbourhood with less than 10% black residents → motivation: many situations where people have opportunity but do not take it – Britains worst ever race riots in july 2001 → risk: actual contact unpredictable – even when non-prejudiced, people can feel anxious about appearing prejudiced – Richeson & Shelton 2003, anxiety shown through non-verbal channels – Ekman et al 1988 – interpreted as prejudice |
|
|
Critical evaluation of imagined contact on prejudice reduction |
Sometimes, actual contact is difficult to establish through segregation & meaningful contact is rarely possible, and when is, it is unpredictable. Imagined contact has reduced implications when compared to actual contact as solely social cognition:- requires no prior or current actual contactsubstitutes for actual contact in segregated contexts-reduces anxiety and inhibitions-promotes positive expectations-open mind-practiced, positive contact script-fluency, control and confidence in actual interactions |
|
|
Imagined Contact Crisp & Turner 2009 |
mental simulation of social interaction with member of outgroup category |
|
|
When is imagined contact less effective? |
Lee & Jussim 2010 -- insignificant next to deep rooted prejudices/ pervasive conflicts/ war & genocide |
|
|
Crossed categorisation |
shifting focus of valued group membership to additional shared group membership Gaertner 1993: shift categorisation to more inclusive levelformer outgroup become ingroup in new superordinate groupimproved intergroup attitude |
|
|
Multiple categorisation |
category differentiation model – Doise 1978; people naturally driven to categorise, model accentuates differences between categories and similarities within categories introduce common group membershipcategorisation effects work against each otherreduction in bias |
|
|
Common Ingroup Identity Model
Gaertner et al 1989/93 |
→ recategorisation from a 2 group representation (us v them) to a one group representation→ shift the categorisation to a more inclusive level so former outgroup members become ingroup members of the new superordinate group – improved intergroup attitude |
|
|
Crossed & Multiple categorisation reducing ingroup bias |
Crossed categorisation can sometimes be useful to understand intergroup bias/ when people think of superordinate groups, however people may not be willing to give up group identities, especially if strong bias. If more group memberships considered (multiple categorisation), categorisation becomes complex – therefore decategorisation = reduced intergroup bias but as categorisation effects work against each other. If strong bias, will be less effective -- more effective to abandon categorisation in favour of alternative strategies of impression formation- Brewer 1988, Fiske & Neuberg 1990 – – continuum of category – attribute impression formation – de-categorisation |
|
|
Social Loafing |
Situation in which individuals exert less effort to achieve a goal as part of a group than when working alone |
|
|
Adherence to social roles in Stanford Prison Experiment |
Reicher & Haslam 2006 argue instructions given to guards in exp gave clear guidance on how to behave- this takes away the idea that individuals will take on roles given to them if they have been told exactly how to act- therefore task instructions that were observed |
|
|
Cohesiveness |
Property of group that affectively binds people as group members, giving group sense of solidarity more cohesive = more groupy |
|
|
Entitativity |
Qualities of a group that make it seem coherent, homogenous & distinct -- clear boundaries of group |
|
|
4 group types based on Entitativity Lickel et al 2000 |
intimacy groups e.g. friends task groups e.g. colleagues social categories e.g. gender loose associations e.g. people who like apples |
|
|
4 Interventions of social loafing |
1. take away/ reduce anoymity 2. give each group member individual task (contributing to common goal) 3. outline clear performance standards (with consequences) 4. group bonding - less likely to let people down |
|
|
Drive-based theory Zajonc 1965 |
Presence of others --> drive --> increased dominant response if task easy/well learned -- perform well = social facilitation if task difficult -- perform badly = social inhibition |
|
|
Evaluation Apprehension Model Cottrell 1972 |
should only be aroused, therefore social facilitation/ inhibition, if group able to evaluate performance |
|
|
Distraction Conflict Theory Baron 1986 |
Presence of others distracting & impairs task performance -- leads to attentional conflict -- dont have cognitive resources to attend to both = drive to perform dominant response |
|
|
Self awareness |
Psychological state in which you are aware traits, feelings and behaviour which define you. It is a temporary state developed in infancy- red spot on nose- Lewis and Brooks 1978 |
|
|
Self Knowledge |
Desire for accurate and certain evidence of ones traits and abilities- Banaji & Prentice 1994 |
|
|
Self Esteem |
Subjective evaluation of self-concept as positive or negative- Sedikides & Gregg 2007 |
|
|
Self Control |
Ability to control ones emotions, behaviour and desires in the face of external demands in order to function in society- self-regulation. Essential to achieve goals and avoid negative impulses or emotions |
|
|
Self Perception Theory Bem 1972 |
only internal attributions contribute to self knowledge as reflects internal thoughts, feelings and attitudes |
|
|
Social Identity Theory Tajfel & Turner 1979 |
the self split into 2 aspects; personal and social identity HOWEVER individual's sense of self and behaviour depends on most salient contextual identity |
|
|
The Self |
use same processes for building self knowledge as building other knowledge-can observe and attribute behaviour to internal/external cause |
|
|
The Group |
sense of self can be defined by relational and collective self schemas |
|
|
3 core motive influencing search for self knowledge |
1. Self assessment 2. Self verification 3. Self enhancement |
|
|
Self Serving Attributional Bias (SSAB) |
Success = Internal Failure = External |
|
|
Consequences of increased self awareness |
Temporary: salience of differences between ideal & actual self - necessary to reduce this However, there are differences between increased private and public self awareness |
|
|
Increased Public Self Awareness |
Evaluation apprehension and anxietyMore likely to attempt to present selves in positive light to othersBehaviour more likely to be consistent with social norms- Bommel et al 2012 – self aware participants less likely to show classic bystander effect |
|
|
Increased Private Self Awareness |
More intense emotionsmore accurate reporting about the self Gibbons et al 1979- self aware P's able to overcome placebo effect Behaviour less likely to be affected by automatic priming effects |
|
|
Social Categorisation |
the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people (including themselves) as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms |
|
|
System Justification Theory Jost & Banaji 1994 |
People want to believe social systems fair & legitimate Stereotypes can rationalise any equality that exists |
|
|
Stereotypes |
set of traits society attributes to particular social group belief based cognitive component |
|
|
Difference between categorisation & stereotyping |
stereotype is category in which person put into, categorisation is circumstances in which person stereotypes |
|
|
Is categorisation inevitable |
Innate - need to use heuristics in order to understand world with limited cognitive resources |
|
|
Stereotype activation |
Devine 1989 - automatic |
|
|
Stereotype application |
can lead to discrimination |
|
|
Why do people stereotype |
To make sense of world -- cognitive misers with limited cognitive resources & cant attend to everything so use heuristics |
|
|
Formation of stereotypes |
through socialisation; family, peers, media... |
|
|
Does prejudice moderate stereotypes? |
Devine's 1989 dual process theory automatic processes; stereotypes activated regardless of prejudice level controlled processes; when people have cognitive resources to control response, can inhibit stereotype & express personal beliefs instead |
|
|
Stereotype Threat |
concern experienced by a person when there is a possibility that they may act in a way consistent with negative stereotypes |
|
|
Evidence that Stereotype Threat affects performance |
Frantz, Cuddy Burnett, Ray & Hart 2004 white american undergrad psychology students IAT-- explicit threat condition = more bias |
|
|
Stereotype threat & women in STEM |
as long as threat not diffused, will be there regardless of whether made explicit withdrawal from stereotyped domain learning in the stereotyped domain |
|
|
2 main interventions to reduce stereotype threat |
1. Reframing & Reappraisal - reframe tests as challenging learning experiences 2. De-emphasis of threatened social identity or domain - list positive and negative attributes descriptive of personality rather than social identity |
|
|
3 cognitive biases contributing to formation and maintenance of stereotypes |
1. biases in exposure/ interpretation 2. illusory correlations 3. self- fulfilling prophecy |
|
|
Ultimate Attribution Error Pettigrew 1979 |
negative/stereotypic behaviours attributed to disposition positive/counterstereotypic behaviours attributed to situation |
|
|
Illusory Correlations Hamilton & Gifford 1976 |
When 2 statistically infrequent events are paired, correlation between the 2 is overestimated due to distinctiveness -- false illusory correlation |
|
|
Self Fulfilling Prophecy Synder, Tanke & Berscheid 1977 |
when stereotypic expectancies lead us to behave in a way which encourages stereotype- consistent behaviour in the outgroup - thus further confirming our expectancies |
