Class Notes (808,753)
Canada (493,377)
Psychology (2,712)
PS270 (134)

PS 270 social psych.docx

20 Pages
Unlock Document

Wilfrid Laurier University
Anne Wilson

PS 270 social psych Chapter 1 Egocentric bias- on group projects etc we think we did more because things that we personally do get processed more than things that others do. Principle of scarcity: if you limit how many things are available or for how long, people want it more Social psychology: scientific study of social behavior, of how people think about, influence and relate to one another -social behavior feelings, thoughts -causes of these behaviors -role of cognitive processes -scientific approach Subject self-selection: whenever subjects choose to be in one group or another then we can’t know for sure it is due to the experiment or innate qualities -we construct our social reality -social influences shape our behavior -personal attitudes and dispositions also shape behavior -social behavior is biologically rooted, it helps us to be social Culture: the enduring change in behavior, attitudes, ideas, shared by a large group of people and transmitted from one generation to the next Social representations: socially shared beliefs, widely held ideas, and values including our assumptions and cultural ideologies. Our social representations help us make sense of our world. Mundane realism: how close the experiment is to the exact real life situation Experimental realism: whether or not the experience psychologically is engaging enough to mimic how it will be seen in real life. Ch2. Self-concept: a person’s answers to the question “who am I?”, cognitive beliefs and knowledge we attribute to ourselves and how it is organized and structured to our self-view Core self-concept: tends to be relatively stationary, slight fluctuations, evidence of a working self- concept that tends to change depending on situation Self-complexity: if we have many ideas of our identity, little overlap between identities this is a high level of self-complexity. Self-complexity helps buffer against adversity, if I do badly in school it seems ok because I’m a friend, musician etc. Self-esteem: emotional evaluation of the self, general feelings and attitudes about the self Social distinctiveness is often related to the current minority identity, ex, Asian female may identify as Asian in a room of white females or as female in a room of Asian males. Individualist cultures: autonomy, focus on traits, uniqueness Collectivist cultures: focus on harmony and fitting in, modesty, duty Controlled processing: your intentional thoughts Automatic processing: thinking that happens without you realizing it Schemas: mental templates, intuitively guide our perception and interpretation, a powerful filter with egocentric tendencies - We are bad at predicting our own actions, we can better predict other’s action than our own., to guess our future it is best to look at our past - We tend to think we are doing more work in any situation because we better remember things we have done Impact bias: misinterpreting the amount a circumstance will affect us, we tend to equalize out our happiness level - Self-reports are often untrustworthy - Looking glass self: using others as a mirror for perceiving ourselves, by the way we imagine they see us, involves partial perception - Private audiences: evaluating ourselves through other people’s eyes “ugh what would my mother think?” - Higher than average self-esteem in people leads to defensiveness when threatened - When people have conscious views of themselves that are higher but low implicit self-esteem, their self-esteem will be fragile, more narcissistic, favor their own group more, discriminate more against others - Secure self-esteem is better for long-term well-being Social comparison: evaluating one’s abilities and opinions by comparing oneself to others Social identity: the “we” aspect of our self-concept, the part of who we are that comes from group membership Self-schema: beliefs about self that organize and guide our processing of self-relevant information Self-reference effect: the tendency to process efficiently and remember information better when ralted to ourselves Possible selves: images of what we dream of or dread becoming in the future Learned helplessness: the hopelessness and resignation learned when a human or animal perceives no control over repeated bad events. - Self- control operates like muscle strength, both are weaker after exertion replenished with rest and strengthened by exercise Self-serving bias: the tendency to perceive oneself favourably - Self serving bias in attributions: when we succed its due to skill, when we fail it is due to circumstance - Illusions of superiority: people generally feel that they are better than average - Unrealistic optimism - Biases in perceived control - Revisionist memory: feeling we are continually improving, when people have good memories of themselves they feel closer to it, and when it is bad we feel further from it, we judge past selves as worse to make current selves feel better False consensus effect: tendency to overestimate the amount of people that agree with our opinions, or bad behaviours False uniqueness: the tendency to underestimate the number of people that have similar talents or successful behaviors like our own - Association with viewing ourselves as good and being secure Self-handicapping: protecting one’s self-image with behaviours that create a handy excuse for failure Self-monitoring: being attuned to the way one presents one-self in social situations and adjusting one’s behaviors to create the desired impression Ch 3 Priming: activating particular associations in memory -much of our social processing is automatic Belief perseverance: persistence of one’s initial conceptions despite reasons it could be false -we construct memories at the time of withdrawal, it involves backward thinking Misinformation effect: incorporating “misinformation” into one’s memory of the event after receiving misleading information afterward -other’s opinion of what we might do tends to be more accurate and more objective than our own Overconfidence phenomenon: the tendency to overestimate the accuracy of our beliefs, incompetence actually feeds overconfidence. To counteract overconfidence: receiving daily feedback, to reduce “planning fallacy” break the plan into chunks and guess how long each chunk will take, think of why your judgment might be wrong Confirmation bias: a tendency to search for information that confirms one’s perceptions Heuristics: a thinking strategy that enables quick and efficient judgments Representativeness heuristic: the tendency to presume despite contrary odds that someone/something belongs to a particular group if resembling a particular member Availability heuristic: cognitive rule that judges the likelihood of things in terms of their availability in memory Counterfactual thinking: imagining alternative scenarios and outcomes that might’ve happened but didn’t Illusory correlation: perception of a relationship where none exists or a stronger one than what exists Illusion of control: people believe they have more control for uncontrollable situations Regression toward the mean: extreme scores are likely to be more average -our moods colour how we see our world Attributions: - Help us predict things that will future happen (evolutionary adaptation), makes us feel more in control - Attributions affect our feelings for one another Misattribution: mistakenly attributing a behavior to the wrong cause Attribution theory: the theory of how people explain others behavior Dispositional (internal) attribution: attributing events to a person’s behavior Situational (external) attribution: attributing events to a circumstance, their environment, the situation Correspondence Inference theory (jones & davis’s): we make an attribution about behaviors to their personality trait, an internal event. Ex. Someone eats sausage, probably because they like sausage. We may also make inferences afterward about circumstance if there are more noticeable factors. People kind of like scientists making inferences. We determine factors such as free choice (whether or not a person has it in the situation reflects the degree to which the act is related to their traits), non-common effect (examining all parts of a situation and see the part that is unique), social desirability in a situation (if their behavior is unusual to a norm or circumstance in a situation it says more about their traits). Covariation model (Kelly): people want a rational attribution, we calculate most plausible reason for something to happen, we observe over multiple instances, think of possible causes such as: the person, the stimulus/situation, combination, circumstances (one particular time, random, luck). Three types of information assessed: consistency (does x person respond to stimulus y every time?), distinctiveness (does person x respond to other stimuli in the same way or differently), consensus (do other people react to stimulus in the same way). -sometimes may also rely on discounting information (if other plausible causes), augmentation (if inhibiting factors, if there are things that suggest they should not behave in this way it really means it should be relevant to personality) Prescriptive: what people could/ should do Descriptive model: what people actually do STI (Spontaneous trait inference): takes about 1/10 of a second for us to make about someone’s personality Fundamental attribution error (correspondence bias): the tendency for people to attribute other’s behavior to disposition, when we watch another person we fail to notice the environment Bias: systematic error, more wrong than right, we don’t want to spend the time and energy to go beyond initial judgments, maybe it’s a cultural error- we’ve been taught to think of disposition in attribution, perceptual salience- if something is happening we pay attention to it not the back ground Game show effect: the questioner appears smarter because they know the answers; no one takes this situation in account -when making our own attributions we pay more attention to what the other person than what we are doing so when thinking of our own behavior we may attribute it to the other because we weren’t paying as much attention to our own behavior Behavior- personal attribution-situation attribution= dispositional attribution (gilbert et al.) correspondence error: maybe people will slow down and take the time to think about circumstance when making attributions when they have a lower stress/cognitive load, people only had slightly lower amount of bias. People pay more attention if they will be held accountable (accountability) or motivated with reward (motivation). -may not be better to suppress your urge to make quick judgments as it is very difficult and we rebound and become stronger once we stop actively suppressing them Causal attribution: reason why something happened -camera perspective changed people’s opinion of guilt -as the once-visible person recedes from memory we then attribute their actions more to environment Self-awareness: self-conscious state where people are more sensitive to their own behaviors and attitudes -we find causes where we look for them -culture also has an influence, eastern cultures are less likely to have fundamental attribution error Self-fulfilling prophecy: a belief that leads to its own fulfillment, works in classrooms, work settings, in courtrooms Behavioural confirmation: a type of self-fulfilling prophecy whereby people’s social expectations lead them to act in ways that cause others to confirm their expectations -we have tendency to over time develop observer memories of ourselves, past selves seem further away -we see our past selves as other people and we make the fundamental attribution bias toward ourselves as well Self-serving bias: we tend to judge poor behavior on circumstance and good behavior on our own talents: we like to feel that way, we expect success because it is what we strive for so it must be us, self- esteem Weiner’s model: causes for success and failure, why people make certain attributions. Locus of control, stability of attribution, controllability. (internal vs external, stable vs unstable) -individual attributions can change the outcome (learned helplessness) Ch 9 Altruism- helping others Altruism: a motive to increase another’s welfare without conscious regard for one’s self-interest Sociology explanation: Social responsibility norm: an expectation that people will help those dependent on them Social-exchange theory: theory that human interactions are transactions that aim to maximize one’s rewards and minimize one’s costs, reduces our own stress, guilt, increases happiness, mood, coping (AA, therapy group) Benevolence: both donor and recipient gain Reciprocity norm: an expectation that people will help, not hurt, those who have helped them Egoism: a motive to increase one’s own welfare. The opposite of altruism which aims to increase another’s welfare -act to reduce guilt -happy people do good Evolution: drive to reproduce our genes Kin selection: the idea that evolution has selected altruism toward one’s close relatives to enhance the survival of mutually shared genes -benefit to recipient B, cost to altruist C, degree of relatedness between themselves and recipient r rB>C Hamilton’s rule -the closer the person looks like to you the more likely you are to help them Reciprocal altruism: they will help you if you help them, symbiotic Empathy: experience of putting oneself in another’s shoes Empathy-altruism hypothesis: empathy leads to helping for purely altruistic reasons, regardless of personal gains Factors of empathy- individual differences, similarity, shock victim study, closeness/ vividness, mimicry Bystander effect: a person is less likely to provide help when there are other bystanders -being in a rush plays a huge part on whether people will help Pluralistic ignorance: false impression of how others are thinking or feeling based on outward appearance, occurs when a situation is ambiguous, relevance to bystander effect Compassion fatigue: people from the country are more likely to help than those in the city due to being overwhelmed with people asking for help -people more likely to help if they see others help as well Door in the face technique: after a person turns down a large request they are more likely to accept the same person offering a smaller one Moral exclusion: perception of certain individuals or groups as outside the boundary within which applies moral values and rules of fairness Moral inclusion: regarding others as within one’s circle of moral concern Overjustification effect: result of bribing people to do what they already like doing, they see their action as externally controlled rather than intrinsically appealing Ch4 Components of attitudes: affect, cognition, behavior -moderator: when do attitudes predict behavior: when outside influences on our reported attitudes are minimal, other influences on behavior is minimized, when attitudes are specific to the behavior, when are attitudes strong/accessible: how quick it comes to mind, knowledge, importance, individual differences -self-report measures, (Likert scale- agreement scale, differential scale-numbers and descripters), observational (overt behaviors, nonverbal cues, physiological reactions), implicit measures the iat associations -when are attitudes strong/accessible: how quick it comes to mind, knowledge, importance -self perception theory: we may observe our own behavior to infer our attitude -we are very quick at judging categories things belong in -schema: mental structures that helps us organize all of the things around us, helps us to perceive all the information in our social worlds, organized into categories or concepts -stereotype is a schema that may block us from thinking further -organized knowledge, abstract knowledge, so we can give meaning to a category as a whole -we develop this through experience Kinds of schemas: -person schemas -role schemas (ex police officer) -event schemas (scripts), very scripted context ex. Funeral Functions of schemas: -help simplify a situation, helps us to understand -guide our information processing, where to direct our attention, make inference, guide memory retrieval -active construction of reality -watson task: if a card has a vowel on one side is has an even number on the other side, most people follow the leading questions -social psychologists never get direct measure of attitudes, they can only measure expressed attitudes which are subject to outside influences, they also measure facial expression, and sometimes use a fake lie detector test Principle of aggregation: effects of an attitude on behavior become more apparent when we look at a person’s aggregate or average behavior rather than at isolated acts -people who take a moment to review their past behavior will better predict future behavior Our attitudes predict our actions if: other influences are minimized, attitude is specific to the action, attitude is potent, related to personal experience Role: set of norms defining how to behave in a social situation Gender roles: a set of behavioral expectations for males and females -people often adapt what they say to their listeners, and if they are not coerced they will begin to believe themselves Foot-in-the-door phenomenon: tendency for people who first agree to a small request to then agree to a larger request Low-ball technique: a tactic for getting people to agree to something, people who agree to an initial request are likely to agree to a larger one -moral action especially when chosen and not coerced leads to moral thinking, this can be used in law- making Leon Festinger-Cognitive dissonance: tension when you have conflicting ideas/ attitudes, not alwas experienced and is different iun situations, amount of dissonance is felt as the dissonant importance and the consonant importance. To reduce dissonance we can change behavior, change attitudes, increase new thought for consonant cognitions, minimize importance. More feeling of choice creates more dissonance. Insufficient justification effect: reduction of dissonance by internally justifying one’s behavior when external justification is “insufficient” Effort justification effect: people change attitudes to account for going through an uncomfortable event Self-perception theory: when unsure of our attitudes we infer based on our own behavior Over-justification effect: when bribing people to do what they’re already doing they may feel externally controlled rather than finding it internally appealing Self-affirmation theory: a theory that people often experience self-image threat after engaging in an undesirable behavior, they compensate by affirming another positive aspect of the self. Group processes: Social facilitation- perform better whan in a group than alone, simple motor tasks but presence of others actually makes it worse if the task is complex. Social facilitation occurs when the arousal enhances dominant (easy, automatic, expert, practiced) response (natural, automatic). Even cockroaches show some of this effect. May be due to evaluation apprehension or the mere presence of others. Social Loafing: pool efforts toward group goal, achievement depends on sum of individual efforts (ex. Tug of war, creativity tasks, group work). Less likely if challenging, involving tasks, rewards, friends, commitment to team, collectivist cultures, women Deindividuation: altered state of awareness, become more group than self, doing together what we wouldn’t do alone. Antecedents: large group, anonymity, arousing chaotic activities, costumes/ uniforms, masks. Darkened chamber experiment, social cues can effect whether the results are negative or positive. Group Decision Making: “Risky Shift” group consensus is riskier than average decisions individuals make “Cautious Shift” more risk involved, group consensus is more cautious than individuals -truly groups tend to polarize they become more extreme than individuals, political attitudes, social issues, prejudices, jury decisions. Requires like-minded groups- which actually happens in real life, friends, activist organizations, political parties CH 6 conformity: Conformity: change in behavior or belief to accord with others, more likely to do the same thing as others than we would if we were alone -we don’t always know what to do in new situations -others can provide useful information -young children learn by imitation; serves informative function, bonding function, “mirror neurons” the idea that parts of our brain are specifically responsible for imitation, the same neurons you would use for an action are activated when you observe the action Conformity/ Social influence happens when: people’s own responses, attitudes, judgments, behavior are influenced by actions of others, when people alter their responses to go along with others Kinds of Social influence: Conformity: group standards, social norms Obedience: response to direct pressure from authority Compliance: direct requests, implicit or explicit influence from others Levels of Conformity: Public Compliance: altering public response but not true private attitudes or beliefs Private acceptance: altering both public responses and personal attitudes or beliefs Sherif: blackened room, pinpoint of light, see it move showing “autokinetic effect” -judgment task, estimate how far the light moved in groups of three, first gave private judgment then said aloud -over time the judgments converged -experimenters switched participants one by one until there were none of the original participants for several experiments and the same judgments persisted (similar to ideas of tradition) Asch group pressure: -line judgment task, less ambiguous as there is clearly a correct answer, had confederates chose correct answer for a couple trials then for the following trials they all picked the same wrong answer 76% of participants chose the wrong answer or in 37% of critical trials. Control participants make almost no mistakes when alone, clearly conformity is at play. Informational conformity: the want to be right. Higher conformity appears on tasks of high difficulty or when being right is important. Normative conformity: the want to assimilate and not to stand out. The person wants to be liked by the group. Moderating Factors (change relationship between variables) 1. Group size: more conformity as group grows until conformity plateaus at 5 2. Unanimity: even a single dissenter weakens conformity of the group 3. Cohesiveness: if you like the group and want to be liked it is more likely that you will conform. A minority opinion from inside the group will sway us more than the same minority opinion outside our group 4. Status: if a person of high status does the act you are more likely to conform 5. Gender: most often women, want to conform with gender 6. Personality: individual need for individuation or control 7. Public- response is made publicly without prior commitment, if they have to yell it our\t rather than privately write it down, once having made a public commitment they stick to it -Social rejection activates the part of the brain that feels pain -evolutionary benefit to conforming (survival, reproduction) Asch: Political intelligence rating, rated higher guessed the meaning of politician to be diplomat, president, when rated lower guessed to be mayor or political hack. They changed their interpretation of the word to conform with others. Allen and Wilder: How likely would you be to go out of your way. If unlikely they took the meaning to be “risk of life” if likely they took the meaning to be “inconvenienced”. Reinterpretation of word to conform. Griffin and Buehler: decided for a person whether to go with risky decision or a cautious one and once told what the majority voted, if they conformed they changed their standards of what would be an acceptable range of risk for him, they changed how they viewed the situation after they conformed or dissented Authoritarianism (Fascism Scale) - obedience and respect for authority are priority -strong xenophobia and fear of change -see people as either weak or strong (perhaps higher in Authoritarianism makes people more likely to be obedient) Milgram experiment: 63% shocked the confederate until the end Moderators of obedience: 1. Emotional distance of victim: a. When they could see them obedience drops to 40% b. When they had to physically touch them it dropped further to 30% 2. Closeness and legitimacy of authority a. Experimenter on the phone it is as low as 22% 3. Institutional Authority a. When held at a regular office building it dropped to 46% 4. Liberating effects of group influence a. When there were two companions rebelling obedience dropped all the way down to 10% 5. Removed, Fragmentation of act a. Ano
More Less

Related notes for PS270

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.