PSY220H1 Study Guide - Winter 2018, Comprehensive Midterm Notes - Memory, Stereotype, Heuristics In Judgment And Decision-Making

387 views31 pages
Published on 12 Oct 2018
School
UTSG
Department
Psychology
Course
PSY220H1
Professor
PSY220H1
MIDTERM EXAM
STUDY GUIDE
Fall 2018
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 31 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 31 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
PSY: Lecture
Social Psychology
Social psychology: study of reciprocal influence of the individual on his or her owns social environment
Has its foothold in abstract theory and concrete practice o it is both application and theory (eng vs
physics)
Deals with probabilities, likelihood and correlations rather absolute laws
Can often be compared with folk wisdom (my grandma can tell you that)
Social Facilitation
Social facilitation: the tendency for people to perform differently when in the presence of others than when
alone
Several different theories and experiments to show why SF happens
Zajonc said the presence of others increases arousal and arousal energizes you and facilitates the most
dominant response
Behaviour that comes very quickly to you
o Conclusion; audience should improve your performance on task that are easy for you and hamper your
performance on task more difficult for you
Cottrell said the audience must be able to judge you or can judge you or else there is no added facilitation
Baron said humans/audience are a distraction and all distractions (noise, smell, etc.) can help easy tasks and
hinder harder tasks
Summary: for Zajonc, Cottrell social facilitation IS SOCIAL but for baron is not. No Zajonc the mere
presence of an audience is sufficient for while for Cottrell and Baron is it NOT
Social Loafing
While social facilitation is arousal, conversely social loafing is relaxation
o the concept that people are prone to exert less effort on a task if they are in a group versus when they
work alone
Ringlemann tested social loafing (see exp)
o The problem with Ringlemann's findings is it contradicts what Zajonc said; rope pulling is easy thus an
audience should INCREASE your rope pulling abilities yet the results showed the opposite?
o Ringlemanns experiment proved social facilitation does occur among bigger groups
So now we want to why; there are 2 hypotheses
o Groups are less coordinated (omg rope pulling stop stepping on my feet!)
o People try less hard in groups (well like nobody knows if I’m singing in the choir so ill lip synch)
Latane experiment answered this questions; people try less hard in groups
Soln. to social loafing:
o Identifiability
o Importance of task
o Own efforts necessary for success of the group
o Threat f punishment
o Small groups
o Group cohesiveness
Karau & Williams gave the collective-effort model:
People seek to optimize the ratio between their input and the groups output
IOW people are not entirely lazy but also not entirely concerned with top performance (you want a fine in-
between)
Groups
Stoner (1961) suggested risky shift: people in groups tend to make less conservative decisions
Later evidence suggested opposite
Group polarization effects: group discussion amplifies initial group inclinations whether risky or
conservative; IOW - whatever the group KINDA felt before will be amplified after talking with group
Three things contribute to group polarization effects:
Greater # of arguments in favour of one position
Informational influence: relying on others to increase confidence in own opinion
Social categorization; clear boundaries between in group and out group
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 31 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
a. Diffence among members become amplified
b. The group becomes more important than the argument
Groupthink
Groupthink: the excessive tendency to seek agreement among group members
Common symptoms of groupthink: illusion to invulnerability, collective efforts to rationalize, unquestioned
beliefs in groups inherent morality, views enemy leader as weaker, direct pressure to dissenter to comply,
self-censorship of derivations from group consensus, shared illusion unanimity
Pluralistic ignorance:
situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but incorrectly assume that most
others accept it, and therefor go alone with it.
Janis proposed some reasons for group think and symptoms:
Caused by: members having similar background, isolated, strong leader, lacking systematic decision-making
procedure, and high stress
You can combat groupthink by increasing diversity of group members
Additive task: product of sum is all member’s contributions; group > indi
Conjunctive tasks; product is determined by individual with worst performance; indi > group
Disjunctive task; product is determined by individual with best performance (e.g. group needs to generate one
great idea); mixed results can be group is better but also indi LETS EXPLORE WITH BRAINSTORMING
Brainstorming; individually > group
Mullen et. al discovered brainstorming in group causes 4 things:
1. Product blocking - not paying attention to what others are saying)
2. Free riding - like social loafing
3. Evaluation apprehension:
when we work in the presence of others, our concern over what they will think can enhance or impair
our performance
4. Performance matching (don't want to look like a try hard)
Although brainstorming is enjoyable and moral booster
Conformity
Sherif (1936) demonstrated that normative pressures can influence our basic visual processes
To test whether these influence is physiological or perceptual effects Mosovicid Personnaz displayed aqua
patch on the wall and told the group it was either blue or green
Then the tested their afterimages and people who were told blue say yellow afterimage and those
who were told green saw red afterimage
This meant their perpetual processes were shaped by the group
Primal senses are affected not juts by physiological effects
Sherif and Salomon Asch point to two reasons for conformity:
Informational influence: group adds additional information beyond what is given by senses
Tends to yield true private acceptances of majority view bc you begin to doubt
yourself
Normative influence: fear of being ostracized by group
Tends to yield superficial public acceptance of majority view
See Allen & Levine exp
o Awareness of norm means high PI (misinterpretation of norm)
If you can write down your opinion conformity decreases significantly
The PI drinking study showed the evaluation of ourselves is lower than group and friends tend to be higher
than us but lower of group and this is because we have more access to info about our friend
Conclusion; people want to conform to norm but sometimes they misidentify the norm and engage is
misguided conformity (+ve FEEDBACK LOOP)
Obedience to Authority
Authority: the power to influence our control based on social norms, traditions, values, and rules that
prescribe that one has the right to such power
Milgram experiment explored obedience
Legitimacy variable: how legitimate is the authority
Immediacy variable: dealt with how physically close involvement was (e.g. given orders via
telephone or strapped up confederate)
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 31 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

No zajonc the mere presence of an audience is sufficient for while for cottrell and baron is it not. Iow people are not entirely lazy but also not entirely concerned with top performance (you want a fine in- between) If there are two experiments and one stays to continue and another says stop the obedience went down to zero. Loud as they could: told them if they were in teams or not, each subjects were told they are put in separate rooms to eliminate the less coordinated hypothesis . Replicated asche longest line exp: nobody broke bubble, somebody broke bubble, somebody had poor eye sight (reported right line) Children reeled better in the presence of others. Social facilitation increases productivity (or so he said) Cockroaches did better on easy maze when they could see audience and did worse on hard maze when they could see the audience.

Get OneClass Grade+

Unlimited access to all notes and study guides.

YearlyMost Popular
75% OFF
$9.98/m
Monthly
$39.98/m
Single doc
$39.98

or

You will be charged $119.76 upfront and auto renewed at the end of each cycle. You may cancel anytime under Payment Settings. For more information, see our Terms and Privacy.
Payments are encrypted using 256-bit SSL. Powered by Stripe.