PSYCH 242 TEST NO.2

Card Set Information

Author:
dsalanga11292
ID:
269049
Filename:
PSYCH 242 TEST NO.2
Updated:
2014-04-03 02:15:01
Tags:
attitudes conformity obedience persuasion groupinfluence psychology socialpsychology psych
Folders:

Description:
social psychology card set for modules 9,14,15, 17-20
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user dsalanga11292 on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. Attitude
    favorable or unfavorable evaluative reactions (feelings or beliefs) towards someone or something
  2. Attitude ⇒ Behavior Link
    1969, Allan Wicker did reviewed several student studies that concluded that the ATTITUDE⇒BEHAVIOR LINK IS LOW
  3. Attitudes predict behaviors when:
    • 1. social influences are minimal
    • 2. attitudes are specific to behavior
    • 3. attitudes are strong (consistent and easily remember)
  4. Explicit Attitude
    conscious, openly espoused, systematic and deliberate activation, planned action
  5. Implicit Attitude
    unconscious, privately held, automatic activation, spontaneous action
  6. Bogus Pipeline
    phony lie-detector device that is sometimes used to get respondents to give truthful answers to sensitive questions
  7. Ways of Covertly Measuring Explicit Attitudes:
    • 1. observable behavior - can be effected by social or other situations
    • 2. measures of arousal - using EMG to analyze facial muscles
  8. Implicit Association Test (IAT)
    computer driven test of attitudes which measures times of pressing a button in reaction to certain images or words
  9. Role
    set of rules about how people in a given social position out to behave
  10. Conformity
    change in behavior or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure
  11. Obedience
    change in behavior as a result of direct order or command
  12. Two Classical Studies of Conformity
    • 1. Auto-kinetic Effect - Muzaref Sherif (1954)
    • 2. Line Conformity Study - Asche
  13. Auto-Kinetic Effect
    optical illusion associated with misinterpretation that a pinpoint of light moves in a dark room
  14. Social Norm
    the rule that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors
  15. Auto-kinetic Effect Procedure and Results
    • Procedure:
    • - Day 1: subject in dark room alone, asked to judge how far light moves in dark room
    • - Day 2-4: same procedure except 2 other confederates in room that purposely said the same wrong answer to see if subject would conform

    • Results:
    • - participants conformed to the opinions of the confederates
    • - demonstrates that people are HIGHLY SUGGESTIBLE
  16. Line Conformity Procedure and Results
    • Procedure:
    • - participants (consisting of 7-9 participants in the crowd) were told they were part of a visual judgement experiment and were required to judge the size of 4 different lines and say which one was the shortest
    • - 1st two trials all give right answer
    • - 3rd trial, they all give the same wrong answer to see if subject would conform

    • Results:
    • - participants conformed with confederates even though lines were obviously not the same size
  17. What was the major difference between Asch and Sherif's studies of conformity?
    • Asche - use of non-ambiguous stimuli
    • Sherif - use of ambiguous stimuli
  18. Informative Influence
    going along with others judgement, belief, or behavior because you believe they are correct
  19. Normative Influence
    feeling pressured into behavior like everyone else because you don't want to feel differently
  20. Variation of Asche - addition of minority confederate, minority ↦ majority, minority leaving room
    • - addition of minority: 25% errors; developed a liking for the minority member
    • - minority ↦ majority: 33% errors
    • - minority leaving room: 10% errors
  21. Persuasion
    the process by which a message induces changes in attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors
  22. Elaboration Likelihood Model
    a model of persuasive communication that holds that there are two routes to attitude change (central and peripheral)
  23. Central Persuasion
    focus on the QUALITY of the arguments in a message
  24. Peripheral Persuasion
    focus on factors OTHER THAN the quality of arguments in a message (ex. aspect of the message or communicator)
  25. What two factors predict when people use Central Persuasion?
    high motivation - personally relevant to others and others have a need for cognition

    and

    high ability - sufficient time and no distraction
  26. Systematic Message Processing (ELM)
    central; active attempts to comprehend and analyze message arguments in order to evaluate overall message
  27. Heuristic Message Processing (ELM)
    peripheral; using simple and general rules based on past experiences or observations
  28. Differential Effects on Attitude
    • Central - strong, resistant to change, predictive of behavior
    • Peripheral - weak, easily changed, not predictive of behavior
  29. Four Elements of Persuasion
    Communicator ↦ Message Content ↦ Channel ↦ Audience
  30. Four Elements of Persuasion - Communicator
    must be perceived as an expert(speaks confidently and is knowledgeable about a topic) and trustworthy(not trying to be persuasive and arguing against own self interest)
  31. Four Elements of Persuasion - Attractiveness
    having qualities that appeal to an audience; physical attractiveness and similarity to the audience
  32. Four Elements of Persuasion - Audience
    • age - older participants less likely to be persuaded
    • thinking - forewarned? distracted? unmotivated?
  33. Four Elements of Persuasion - Message Content (Length and Order)
    Length: peripheral - longer=more persuasive; central - longer=more complicated

    Order: primacy - information presented first is more influential; recency - "best for last"
  34. Four Elements of Persuasion - Message Content (Good Mood vs Fear)
    • Good mood - rely on peripheral cues
    • Fear - more likely to change attitudes and affect behavior
  35. Foot in the door phenomenon
    by asking someone to do a small favor, they will be more likely to do a larger favor in the future
  36. Foot in the door phenomenon Experiment (Door to Door Donations)
    • Procedure:
    • - experimental group given pin to support cancer drive, control group given nothing
    • - asked for donations the next day

    • Results:
    • - experimental group more likely to give donations (change attitudes towards self or cause)
  37. Door in the face Phenomenon
    by asking someone to do a large and outrageous favor (and they refuse), they will be more likely to agree to do a smaller request
  38. Door in the face Phenomenon Experiment (College Student Mentoring)
    • Procedure:
    • - experimental group asked to mentor young child for 2 hrs a week for 2 years, control group asked nothing
    • - asked both groups to take child to the zoo for 2 hours

    Results: experimental group more likely to agree (cognitive dissonance about behavior)
  39. Group
    two or more people who, for longer than a few moments, interact with or influence one another and perceive one another as "us"
  40. Social Facilitation (1st - Original)
    tendency to perform better when others are present
  41. Social Facilitation (2nd - New)
    mere presence of others hinders performance when task is difficult or person is a novice and enhances performance when task is easy or person is an expert
  42. Norman Triplett
    Biking alone and Fishing rod experiments on social facilitation
  43. Social Facilitation Research - Audience Effects (Dashiell)
    doing something while others are watching effects social facilitation
  44. Social Facilitation Research - Co-action Effects (Floyd Allport)
    participants engaging in same behavior as one another, but not collectively in full view of one another effects social facilitation
  45. Robert Zanjonc
    arousal - enhances performance on easy tasks and diminishes performance on complex tasks

    social facilitation - mere presence of others increases arousal
  46. Social Facilitation (3rd - Newest)
    the strengthening of dominant (prevalent, likely) responses in the presence of others
  47. Social Loafing
    the tendency for people to exert less effort when they are working toward a common goal and are not individually accountable for their efforts
  48. Social Loafing - Tug of War Studies
    Procedure - experimental group blindfolded and made to believe others were pulling with them while control pulled alone

    Results - control group participants pulled 18% harder
  49. Social Loafing - Exercise Bicycles
    Procedure - experimental group told their output was being pooled while control was being individually monitored

    Results - experimental group less energetic than control group
  50. Social Loafing - Free-Riders
    people who benefit from the group but give litter in return
  51. Evaluation Apprehension
    effects of social loafing explained by decrease in worrying about being evaluated or judged
  52. Deindividuation
    loss of self-awareness, loss of evaluation apprehension, responsiveness to group norms
  53. Deindividuation - Perceptual Salience
    people's attention focused on the situation, not themselves
  54. Deindividuation - Loss of Evaluation Apprehension
    fear of being evaluated or judged is reduced because individual behavior is less likely to be recognized
  55. Deindividuation - Situational attributions
    because "everyone is doing it", can attribute to behavior to situation rather than to something internal
  56. Zimbardo
    Standford Prison Experiment
  57. Group Polarization
    the tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members
  58. Group Think
    the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview