Social Psych

Card Set Information

Social Psych
2012-06-04 01:04:41
Social Psych

Social Psych GRE
Show Answers:

  1. Sherif
    Used autokinetic effect to study conformity; also performed Robber's Cave Experiment and found that having superordinate goals increased intergroup cooperation
  2. Asch
    Studied conformity by asking subjects to compare the length of lines

    Result: Subjects yield to group pressure and choose incorrect line
  3. Milgram
    Studied obedience by asking subjects to administer electroshock; also proposed stimulus-overload theory to explain differences between city and country dwellers
  4. Aronson and Linder
    Proposed gain-loss principle (an evaluation that changes will have more effect than an evaluation that remains constant)
  5. Bem
    Developed self perception theory as an alternative to cognitive dissonance theory
  6. Clark and Clark
    Performed study on doll preferences in African American children; the results were used in the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education case.
  7. Darley and Latane
    Proposed that there were 2 factors that could lead to non-helping: social influence and diffusion of responsibility
  8. Eagly
    Suggested that gender differences in conformity were not due to gender, per se, but to differing social roles.
  9. Festinger
    Developed cognitive dissonance theory; also developed social comparison theory
  10. Hall
    Studied norms for interpersonal distance in interpersonal interactions
  11. Heider
    Developed balance theory to explain why attitudes change; also developed attribution theory and divided attributions into 2 catagories: dispositional and situational
  12. Hovland
    Studied attitude change
  13. Janis
    Developed the concept of groupthink to explain how group decision making can sometimes go awry
  14. Lerner
    Proposed concept belief in a just world
  15. Lewin
    Divided leadership styles into 3 catagories: Autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire
  16. McGuire
    Studied how psychological inoculation could help people resist persuasion
  17. Newcomb
    Studied political norms
  18. Petty and Cacioppo
    Developed elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (central and peripheral routes to persuasion)
  19. Schachter
    Studied the relationship between anxiety and the need for affiliation
  20. Zajonc
    Studied the mere exposure effect; also resolved problems with the social facilitation effect by suggesting that the presense of others enhances the emission of dominant responses and impairs the emission of nondominant responses
  21. Zimbardo
    Performed prison simulation and used concept of deindividuation to explain results
  22. Reinforcement theory
    Behavior is motivated by anticipated rewards; social approval influences behavior. [Verplank, 1950's]
  23. Bandura
    Social learning theorist; challenged reinforcement theory and said behavior is learned through imitation
  24. Role Theory
    People are aware of the social roles they're expected to fill and much of their behavior can be attributed to adopting these roles. [Bindle]
  25. Cognitive theory in social psychology
    Perception, judgement, memories, and decision making are cognitive concepts that have influenced our understanding of social behavior
  26. Consistency theory
    Hold that people prefer consistency and will resist changing attitudes based on this preference
  27. Cognitive Dissonance theory
    The conflict you feel when your attitudes are not in sync with your behaviors; may result in attitude change. (ex. cigarette hater dating a smoker mental pressure to change attitude) [Festinger]
  28. Post-decisional dissonance
    Results after a person makes a free choice between alternatives (ex. 2 women). Dissonance doesn't start until after the decision is made (I like Jill but I'm not going to see her any more) this can be resolved by spreading of the alternatives.
  29. Spreading of the alternatives
    Accentuating the positive in the chosen choice and the negative in the non-chosen
  30. Forced-compliance dissonance
    Occurs when an individual is forced into behaving in a manner inconsistant with her beliefs or attitudes. Force may come from either anticipated rewards or punishments (child eating spinach for ice cream dessert)
  31. Balance theory
    • Balance is sought after in relation to 3 elements [Heider]
    • P- person
    • O- other person
    • X- object
    • (P likes O and O and P like X: Balanced. P dislikes O and P and O like X: Unbalanced. P likes O and P likes X and O dislikes X: Unbalanced. P dislikes O and P like X but O does not: Balanced)
  32. Minimal Justification Effect (or insufficient justification effect)
    • When external justification is minimal you will reduce your dissonance by challenging your internal cognitions. (Demonstrated in Festinger and Smith's exp. where subjects paid more for a boring task reported enjoying it less)
    • Attitude change generally occurs when behavior is induced with minimum pressure; the greater the pressure the less likely an attitude is to change
  33. Self Perception Theory
    • If your attitudes about something are weak/ambiguous you observe your own behavior and attribute an attitude towards yourself; infer attitudes based on own behavior (I guess I like brown bread, I'm always eating it) [Bem]
    • Explains $1 vs 20 experiment along with min. justification effect
    • Key difference here is a persons initial attitude is irrelevant and there is no discomfort produced by behavior
  34. Overjustification Effect
    If you reward someone for doing something they like doing they may stop liking it. They will attribute their behavior to externam sources ($) instead of disposition (liking it)
  35. Hovland and Weis on attitude change
    • 3 components: The communicator (one trying to persuade), the communication (presentation of argument), the situation (surroundings in which the communication takes place)
    • Found people are more likely to be persuaded if the argument is coming from a source they deem credible.
    • Credibility increases when someone argues against their own self-interest (drug user argues against drugs)
  36. Sleeper effect
    Weird phenomena where over time the persuasive impact of credible sources decrease and low credibility sources increase
  37. Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
    • 2 routes:[Petty and Cacioppo)
    • Central route- The issue is very important to you; you listen closely and mentally generate counter arguments. Here strong arguments will change your mind more often than weak ones
    • Peripheral route- You don't care too much about the issue, can't clearly hear message, or are distracted. Aren't or can't pay attention so the strength of the argument doesn't matter; what does is how, by whom, or in what surroundings the argument is being presented
  38. Analogy of Psychological Inoculation
    • People can be psychologically inoculated against an oncoming attack by first exposing them to a weakend attack. This inoculation involves: [McGuire]
    • Refuted couter-arguments- Presenting counter arguments motivates people to practice defending their beliefs (teeth brushing/enamel)
  39. Belief Perserverance and Reactance
    • When people hold on to a belief even after they've shown it to be false. Happens when you're induced to believe a statement is true and then give your own explanation for it (chocolate causes acne)
    • Reactance- If you try too hard to persuade someone of something their freedom feels threatened and they'll re-assert their freedom by choosing to believe the opposite of your position
  40. Social Comparison Theory
    • Holds that we're drawn to affiliate because of our tendency to evaluate ourselves in relationship to other people. 3 principles: [Festinger]
    • 1. People prefer to evaluate themselves by objective, non social means but this isn't always possible
    • 2. The less similarity between 2 people the less tendency to make these comparisons
    • 3. When discrepancy exists there is a tendency to change ones position to be in line with the group
  41. Social Comparison Theory and anxiety
    Found that the greater anxiety (i.e need for self evaluation) a person has leads to a greater desire to affiliate. However anxious people prefer the company of other anxious people. [Schachter]
  42. Reciprocity Hypothesis and Gain-Loss Principle
    • Reciprocity- we tend to like people who indicate that they like us, reverse is also true
    • Gain-Loss Principle- We will like someone more if their liking for us has increased than someone who has consistantly liked us, reverse is also true [Aronson and Linder]
  43. Social Exchange Theory
    Assumes that a person weighs the reward and costs of interacting; more the reward outweighs the cost the greater the attraction
  44. Equity Theory
    We not only consider our own costs/rewards but also the other persons. If one person feels they're getting less/more out of the relationship then there will be an instability
  45. Attraction in terms of Similarity and Need Complementarity
    • Similarity- People of similar intelligence, attitudes, education, height, age, socioeconomic status, drinking habits, and mental health tend to affiliate
    • Need Complementarity- Talkers affiliate with listeners, dominant with submissive, etc. Mutually satisfies each others needs however ever even here there are usually fundamental similarities
  46. Attractivness Stereotypes, Spatial Proximity, and Mere Exposure Effect
    • Attractiveness Stereotype- tendency to attribute positive/desirable qualities to attractive people
    • Spatial Proximity- People like people more that live near them, possibility for this could be the mere exposure effect- repeated exposure to stimuli leads to increased liking for it [Zajonc]
  47. Factors in Bystander Effect
    • Helping is motivated by altruism and greed [Darley and Latane]
    • Social Influence- presence of others may lead to the interpretation of the event as a non-emergency if the event seems ambiguous (smoke,no fire)
    • Diffusion of Responsibility- IF interprets event as an emergency has to decide whether or not to help. Weighs costs and rewards (including guilt of not helping); others present may lead to not helping
    • Pluralistic Ignorance- When other people lead person to define the event as a non-emergency (confederates in the room ignoring the smoke)
    • Diffusion of responsibility occured even when social influence was taken out and the subject couldn't see how other bystanders were reacting.
  48. Empathy-altruism model
    When faced with situations others may need help people may feel distress (mental pain/ anguish) and/or empathy-either can determine helping behavior. (Note some psychologists fundamentally disagree and believe helping behavior only occurs when there is some benefit to the individual offering to help) [Batson]
  49. Empathy-altruism experiment
    • Experiment- subjects watched a tv displaying a person
    • needing help (appearing to receive painful electrical shocks). Some subjects were given the choice to leave after the first 2 (easy-escape condition) and others were asked to stay to witness 10 (difficult-escape condition). After the 2nd shock subjects completed a questionnaire that measured the degree they felt distress and empathy for the person. The subject was then told that the person receiving shocks also received traumatic shocks as a child and was given the opportunity to take that persons place for the last 8 shocks. Subjects in the easy-escape condition who reported more distress than empathy tended to leave rather than help. Subjects who reported more empathy than distress were more likely to help regardless of whether they were in the easy or difficult-escape condition.
  50. Social Learning Theory and Experiment
    • Holds that aggression is learned through modeling (direct observation) or through reinforcement. Modeling- Bobo doll
    • study. Children 3-5 either watched adult play with tinker toys or beat of a Bobo doll, then child made to feel frustrated and left in room. The children who observed the aggressive behavior were more likely to beat up on Bobo when left alone, sometimes copying the behavior exactly. Bandura also believed aggressive behavior can be selectively reinforced and people do it because they expect a reward (material benefit, social approval, attention, etc) [Bandura]
  51. Conformity Study (autokinetic)
    • If you stare at a point of light in an otherwise dark room the light will appear to move [the autokinetic effect]. Sherif had
    • subjects when alone estimate the amount of movement (any of which amount is an illusion) then brought group of subjects together and had them estimate as a group the amount of movement. Found subjects solitary estimates changed so that the group agreed on a norm; individuals conformed to group. [Sherif]
  52. Conformity Study (lines)
    • Conformity defined as yielding to group pressure- especially
    • when no explicit demand has been made to do so. Exp. 7-9 college men in group asked to compare lines, obvious answers, asked to announce answers in the order they were seated [subject in last seat]. All agreed in first 2 rounds, 3rd
    • rounds all other confederates agreed- on wrong answer [subject alone picked the wrong answer less than 1% of the time]. Subjects gave the wrong answer 37% of the time. More than 75% gave a wrong answer at least once. [Asch]
  53. Obedience Study (Shock)
    Inspired by the idea of Asch’s line exp. that Milgram thought was trivial. Subjects at Yale univ believed they were taking part in an experiment of the effects of punishment on learning. Subject introduced to someone called Mr. Wallace [described by most observers as mild-mannered and likable- who was actually a confederate]....Obedience to authority was measured by the maximum shock a subject would administer. Each of the 40 subjects administered at least 300-volts (which is the point he pounded on the wall) upon pounding 5 refused to continue. 26 of the 40 (65%) continued beyond “Danger: severe shock” to the last switch marked “XXX”. Everyone was willing to hurt someone at experimenters command and two-thirds of the subject were completely obedient to the exp- who had no special authority to enforce his commands. [Milgram]
  54. Compliance, Foot-in-door, and Door-in-face
    • Compliance- a change in behavior that occurs as a result of situational or interpersonal pressure
    • Foot-in-the-door effect- compliance with a small request increases likelihood for compliance with a larger one
    • Door-in-the-face effect- people who initially refuse a larger initial request are more likely to agree to a later small request
  55. Doll Preference task
    Showed each child a black and a white doll and asked them questions about how they felt about the doll. The majority of white and black kids preferred the white doll. At the time (1947) this highlighted the negative effects of racism and minority group status on the self-concept of black children; Used to argue against segregation in Brown vs Board of education; Since 1960’s after balancing the ethnicity of the experimenter and maybe changing times this result has not stayed as true [Clark and Clark]
  56. Primacy Effect, Recency Effect, Attribution Theory, and Fundamental Error
    • Primacy effect- those occasions when 1rst impressions are more important than subsequent impressions.
    • Recency effect- When the most recent information we have about an individual is the most important in forming our impressions
    • Attribution theory- focuses on the tendency for individuals to infer the cause of other people’s behavior; [Heider, of balance theory] is one of the founding fathers of attribution theory
    • 2 main categories: Dispositional and situational (did the characterizations of the situation or of the individual determine their behavior)
    • Fundamental Attribution Error- Tendency to be biased and usually attribute others behavior to dispositional characteristics
  57. Halo Effect and Just World Theory
    • Halo Effect- The tendency to allow a general impression about a person to influence other, more specific evaluations (“I like Jill in general” to “Jill is trustworthy/good writer/ can do no wrong”) Explains why people are often inaccurate in their evaluations of a person they believe to be generally bad or good
    • Just World Theory- The tendency of individuals to believe in a just world (where good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people) A strong belief in a just world increases the likelihood of “blaming the victim” since just world view denies the possibility of innocent victims. [Lerner]
  58. Group Influence; Womens College Study
    Study at an all women’s college. Two-thirds of them came from republican parents but the school itself had a liberal atmosphere. Newcomb found each year of a students career was marked by an increase in her liberalism (Students increasingly accepted the norms of their community). Most kept political views after leaving the school (liberal stayed liberal and conservative stayed conservative) and married someone with similar view, however if a liberal married a conservative she generally returned back to her conservatism. [Newcomb]
  59. Proxemics Theory, Zajonc's Audience Theory, and Social Loafing Effect
    • Proxemics- suggested that there are cultural norms that govern how far we stand away from each other when speaking. In U.S if intimate about a foot, if strangers than a few feet. [Hall]
    • [Zajonc]- Argues the presence of others increases arousal and enhances the emission of dominant responses. During the early stages of learning these responses are likely to be wrong (like learning a new dance step- the wrong movements are likely to be dominant) According to him the presence of others would enhance the wrong movements however for expert dancers the correct moves are likely to be dominant and the presence of others improves performance.
    • Social Loafing- The tendency for people to put forth less effort in a group than when acting individually
  60. Group Influence/Self Identity; Prison Study
    • [Zimbardo]- found people are more likely to commit antisocial acts when they feel anonymous. He did a prison simulation: half applicants randomly selected to be guards and half prisoners. Told them to go home and wait a call as to what they had been assigned- instead sent police cars to pick up prisoners (searched, handcuffed, blindfolded, taken to mock prison and given prison outfit). Guards just told to maintain law and order and that physical violence was prohibited (had khaki uniforms, clubs, whistles, keys to solitary confinement and handcuffs). Prisoners became more authoritarian and abusive and 3 prisoners had breakdowns (1 additional had to be sent home), and 1 developed psychosomatic rash. The experiment intended to last 2 weeks was cut short at 6 days
    • Zimbardo said one of the major processes operating within the prison was deindividuation- refers to loss of persons self awareness or identity. Here the participant’s sense of self was getting overwhelmed with the roles they were playing and they more or less became temporarily forgetting it was just a role.
  61. Groupthink
    [Janis]- studied the ways that group decisions often go awry (ex. Pearl Harbor). Says judgment can fail in group situations because decision makers are involved in groupthink- refers to the tendency of decision makers to strive for consensus by not considering discordant information.
  62. Risky Shift
    • Risky shift- Refers to findings that group decisions are riskier than the average of the individual’s choices. One explanation is the value hypothesis – that this occurs in situations where riskiness is culturally valued. The less risky members of the group will compare themselves to the more risky and will become riskier. This may also just be a more specific example of group polarization.
    • [Stoner]- Did an experiment to asses the risky shift in controversial situations with couples (i.e a pregnancy that would threaten the mother’s life or termination) this time the findings showed a group shift towards caution. Shows the content of the item can determine the direction of the shift. Group decisions tend to be more extreme but not necessarily more risky than the decisions of individuals

  63. Group polarization, Leadership, and Leadership Styles
    • Group polarization- The tendency for group discussion to enhance the group’s initial tendencies toward riskiness or caution; If a group originally has the tendency to be cautious further discussion will make the group more cautious and vice versa
    • Leadership- Research has shown that leaders of groups engage more in communication than non-leaders. Furthermore by artificially increasing the amount a person speaks that person’s perceived leadership status also increases.
    • [Lewin]- Did study to determine the effects of different leadership styles, manipulated styles used to supervise boysin an after-school program: Autocratic group of boys were more hostile, more aggressive, and more dependent on their leader, Laissez-fair group were less efficient, less organized, and less satisfying for the boys than the democratic group. Democratic groups were more satisfying and more cohesive than autocratic groups. Quantity of work was greater in autocratic groups than others but motivation and interest were stronger in democratic groups.
  64. Prisoner's Dilemma
    • Prisoner’s dilemma- Prisoner A and B taken into custody and separated. If neither confess both charged with misdemeanor, if both confess both will be prosecuted for a felony with a moderate sentence recommended, if one confesses and other doesn’t his/her charges will be dropped and the other will be prosecuted for a felony with maximum sentence recommended. A given person gains the most if he or she chooses to cooperate and the other competes and loses the most if he/she competes and the other cooperates. [Cooperating (confessing)- possible outcomes are Felony (moderate sentence) or charges dropped. Competing (not confessing)- possible outcomes are Felony (harsh sentence) or misdemeanor.
    • Why would one chose to compete? 1. He wants to get the best for himself; 2. He doesn’t trust the other prisoner and doesn’t want to be left solely being charged. D.A counts on at least one person being self-interested or untrustworthy to get at least one conviction. DA would prefer neither of them cooperate with each other and both get a felony.
  65. Robber's Cave Experiment
    • Robber’s Cave Experiment- This study created hostilities through competition and then reduced hostilities through cooperation at a boys camp. Subjects were 22 twelve yr old boys. 2 groups arrived separately, were taken to distant cabins and did not know of each others existence. During the first week the boys in each group engaged in cooperation (interdependent) activities. These things developed in each group; status hierarchy, role differentiation for various tasks, norms for behavior, and self-adopted names for each group; The Rattlers and The Eagles (Rattlers also lived up to name and were rougher while Eagles developed more polite norms). The first week created group allegiance within both groups. After 1rst week, found out about other group and 4 day competitive tournament meant to create hostility (which it did) was staged. Now researchers wanted to see if they could reduce the hostility they created. 7 situations requiring contact between groups were arranged, movies, meals, but failed to reduce hostility. Researchers then rearranged activities so the 2 groups had to work together to solve a problem (pool $ to see movie), these helped
    • Superordinate goals- Goals best obtained through intergroup cooperation [Sherif; from light/conformity study]