Textbook Notes (368,611)
Canada (162,009)
Psychology (935)
PSYC 102 (121)

Psyc102 - Ch13 - Social Behavior .docx

7 Pages
Unlock Document

PSYC 102
Russell Day

Psychology 102 Chapter 13: Social thinking/perception, Social influence, Social relation SOCIAL THINKING AND PERCEPTION Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behaviour  Attribution: judgements about cause of our own and other people’s behaviour and outcomes  Personal attributions: infer that people’s behaviour is caused by their characteristics o eg I got an A because I am smart  Situational attributions: the situation cased a behaviour o eg I got an A because the test was easy  Three types of info determines the which attribution we make: consistency, distinctiveness, consensus o Consistency: does Kim hate Psyc101 every time you ask? o Distinctiveness: if Kim ONLY dislike psyc 101 (high), if she think all classes are hard (low) o Consensus: others agree (high), no one agrees (low) o If all is high, then we make situational attribution (course is hard), , if only consistency is high, we make personal attribution (Kim is overly critical or hates school)  Fundamental attribution error: we underestimate the impact of the situation and overestimate the role of personal factors when explaining people’s behaviour  Eg when we hear people have debates, we think they agree to their topic, while many times they are forced to debate for one side.  Eg we expect movie stars have same personal traits as the characters they play4 o Only apply to how we perceive others, not our own  eg we call slow drivers ‘moron’ and fast drivers ‘maniac’, but we do not see ourselves that way when we drive slow or fast – because we have more info about our situation to make judgements o when people have time to reflect, they are more motivated to thinking carefully, and reduce fundamental attribution error – eg shooting rampage, knows its media, bad parenting, etc, not the kid is mentally crazy  Self-serving bias: we use it when explaining own behaviour – more personal attribution for success, more situational attribution for failures o Strength of it depends on psychological state and culture norms  Depressed people – opposite, too little success and too much credit for failures  Individualism take more credit / Collectivist, less credit for success, accept more responsibility for failures  Asians – holistic view – see world as interconnected – thus take more info into account when making attributions Forming and Maintaining Impressions  Primacy effect: tendency to attach more importance to initial information that we learn about a person o we tend to be more alert to first info o first info shape how we perceive subsequent info o eg kid starts off good, but as grades goes down, teacher think its fatigue, drop in motivation, bad luck  Recency effect: give greater weight to the most recent info and decrease primacy effect o Happens when we are asked to avoid snap judgements, carefully consider the evidence  Mental set: readiness to perceive the world in a particular way – shape how we interpret world o We see what we expect to see. If we have a pre-set concepts and expectation about someone, their behaviour will be interpreted and be ‘fit’ into our schema – eg guy is shy / guy is cold  Stereotype: generalized belief about a group or category of people o eg judge a girl on her academic potential – blue collar or white collar parents – performed average, answer some miss some – white collar said she was better, blue collar said she was below average – o people have stereotypes about blue/white collar workers which created a mental set that biased their perception of Hannah’s subsequent behaviour  Self-fulfilling prophecy: erroneous expectations lead us to act towards other in a way that brings about the expected behaviour, thereby confirming original impression o eg think guy is cold, your behaviour toward him may change in subtle ways (stand further away, give little effort), his response may be a reaction to your behaviour Attitudes and Attitude Change  Attitude: positive or negative evaluative reaction toward a stimulus Does attitude influence behaviour? Why attitude-behaviour relationship is sometimes strong, sometimes weak: 1. Attitudes influence our behaviour more strongly when counteracting situational factors are weak. o Theory of planned behaviour: our intension to engage in a behaviour is strongest: o when we have a positive attitude toward that behaviour o When subjective norms (what others think we should do) support our attitudes o When we believe that the behaviour is under our control 2. Attitudes have a greater influence on behaviour when we are aware of them and when they are strongly held o Consistency increase when we consciously think about our attitudes before acting o Stronger and more predictive when attitudes are formed through personal experience 3. General attitudes are better at predicting general class of behaviour, and specific attitudes are better at predicating specific behaviour Does behaviour influence our attitude? Self-justification: theory of cognitive dissonance: people strive for consistency in cognitions o When cognitions contradict each other, tension arise (I am honest, I just lied), we become motivated to reduce this dissonance o People may change or add new cognitions  Eg 20$ - who wouldn’t lie for 20$  1$, not enough justification – need to convince self that tasks were actually enjoyable  Thus technically didn’t lie, changed attitude to bring more into line with how they feel/behave  Counterattitudinal behaviour: Behaviour that is inconsistent with attitude o Only produce dissonance if our action was freely chosen rather than forced o Dissonance is maximized when behaviour threatens our sense of worth or foresee negative consequences o This theory had induced people to engage in counterattitudinal behaviours – eg students who write opposite position often shift their attitudes that way  Dissonance does not always lead to attitude chance. People reduce dissonance by rationalizing that their behaviour was not important, make excuses - eg people who know alcohol is bad, but drinks it, say ‘other drinks more than I do’ Self-perception theory: we infer our own attitudes by watching our own behaviour o Eg lie for 1$, so ‘deep down’ I must have liked the experiment  In general, dissonance theory better explains why people change attitudes after behaving in ways that contradict CLEARLY defined attitudes – threaten self-image  Self-perception theory explain better when attitude is WEAK and does not threaten self-worth Persuasion  Communicator: o Communicator credibility: how believe they are o Many do not like to think deeply, so go along with most credible source o Stronger persuasion when: Expertise and trustworthiness (an expert and unbiased), Physically attractive, likeable, similar to us  Message: o Two-sided refutational approach – more effective – less bias o Moderate degree of discrepancy – more effective o Moderate fear – and effective low cost ways to reduce threat  if TOO threatening, people reduce anxiety by denying message’s truth  Audience o Central route to persuasion: think carefully and influenced because argument is compelling – message last longer, deeper foundation, predict behaviour more successfully  use more often when personally relevant, high involvement  people with high need for cognitions prefer central route  uncertainty-orientated people look for new info – prefer central route o Peripheral route to persuasion: don’t understand message but influenced by other factors (speaker’s looks, message’s emotional appeal) SOCIAL INFLUENCE  Social facilitation – increased tendency to perform one’s dominant response in the mere presence others o Mere presence of others increase our arousal, and we are likely to perform our dominant response (most typical response) o If task is difficult – dominant response is to make errors – therefore impairs performance o If it is simple – dominant response is to do it correctly – therefore enhances  Social norms – shared expectations of how to think/fee/behave – can be formal or informal  Social role – set of rules to how to behave in given position – eg role of ‘police’ ‘student’ ‘spouse’ o Role conflict – when role clashes – student and mom have competing demands o Norms form even within randomly assigned groups Conformity  Informational social influence – we follow group opinion/behaviour because we believe they are right  Normative social influence – we conform to be accepted and avoid rejection Factors that affect conformity  Group size – one to 5 people, confirmation increase from 5% to 35%, but that is the max, even with 10 people  Presence of a dissenter – if just one person disagrees with the others, conformity greatly reduced. Even if they give wrong answer (line 3), this person serves as model for remaining independent  Easy/difficulty – if task is easy, conformity decrease / if task is hard and we don’t know what is right, conformity increases  Culture - collectivist culture increase conformity because harmony is valued more highly  Minority influence – a highly committed minority point of view, is consistent, open mind, remain independent – can cause majority members to change their views (at least on private level) o However if minority view is too unreasonable, deviant or negative, may lead people to go even further away Obedience Factors that influence destructive obedience  Remoteness of the victim: if the victim is out of sight, we are more likely to obey to hurting them. o If we have to see them or physically touch them, obedience drop greatly  Closeness and legitimacy of authority figure: obedience is highest if authority figure is close by and perceived as legitimate. o If they left scene or someone else gave order, obedience drops  Dirty work: obedience increase if someone else does the ‘dirty work’, more likely to obey if only doing another aspect of task. o If made fully responsible, not a single person obeyed till the end  Personal characteristics: non-existent. Politics, religion, military, education, gender, nothing made difference. Compliance techniques  Norm of reciprocity: when others treat us well, we should respond in kindness o Eg someone give u flower, then ask for money, you are more likely to give  Door-in face technique: make large request, you reject, then make smaller request o We feel guilty when not giving 20$, to reduce guilt, we give 2$ when asked, when normally we wouldn’t have  Foot-in-the-door technique: get you to do small request, then later present larger request  Lowballing: get you to commit, then before you perform, raise the cost – raise price after you decide to buy Crowd behaviour and deindividuation  Deindividuation: loss of individuality that leads to disinhibited behaviour (common in gangs) o Anonymity to outsiders: less identifiable to outsiders, reduce feelings of accountability, increase antisocial actions o Eg if its dark and crowed is big, people will encourage people to suicide Group influences on performance and decision making  Social loafing: tendency to give less individual effort when working in a group o more likely to happen when: o think they are not being monitored o goal has little to no meaning o group is less important to person o task is simple and believe effort is redundant o fatigue – ‘skate by’ on other’s shoulders  Collective effort model: when working together, people will put effort only to the extent that they expect their effort to contribute to obtaining a valued goal  Women more likely to be concern about group than men, less social loafing  Social loafing disappear if they are monitored, highly value  Social compensation: work harder in group because expect others to slack or don’t have ability  Group polarization: going to the extremes: when a group discuss an issue, the ‘average’ opinion tends to be more extreme o Normative social influence – person want to be accepted, so adapt more extreme position to gain approval o Informational social influence – people hear arguments about their position that they had not previously considered – make their position even more valid  Group think: tendency for group members to suspend critical thinking because they are striving to seek agreement o More likely to happen when group is:  Under high stress to reach a decision  Insulated from outside input  Directive leader with own agenda  High cohesion: closeness and ability to work together o Symptoms of group think  Direct pressure to stop opposite thinking  Mind guards – preventing negative info from teaching within  Self-censorship – withhold doubts  Illusion of unanimity – everyone else agree with decision o Result:  Incomplete survey of alternatives  Incomplete survey of objectives  Failure to examine risk  Poor information search SOCIAL RELATIONS Affiliation  Why do we affiliate? To obtain positive stimulation, receive emotional support, gain attention, permit social comparison  Social comparison: comparing beliefs/feelings/behaviour – help us determine what is normal and our abilities  those with high need for affiliation made more friends, often think about people and wish to be with people  they also have a st
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 102

Log In


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.