SOCIAL Flashcards

Question

BIRG-ing

Answer 1

--> basking (take pleasure in reflected glory): - others' success becomes OUR success - aligns ourselves publicly with successful people - wearing team clothing, saying 'we' (football players) - motive for ENHANCEMENT: we want to feel good

Answer 2

-- > cutting off reflected failure: others' failure becomes our failure, unless... - we distance ourselves publicly from them - taking down signs of support - motive for PROTECTION: we want to avoid feeling bad

Answer 3

- Most of us tend to view ourselves +vely - people think they are ABOVE average on a wide range of positive dimensions - Most drivers said their driving skill was closer to “expert” than “poor”...while hospitalised for being in a car accident

Answer 4

1. psychological distance: loneliness 2. social distance: social network centrality 3. induced distance: rejection and discrimination

Answer 5

--> Feeling of distress when social relations are not going how we wld like: - Diff btwn connectedness level - we want to hv & what we currently hv - We can be surrounded by others AND still be lonely / be alone BUT not feel lonely - lonliness is affected by rs quality > rs quantity

Answer 6

--> A way of quantifying social structures - Characterises networked structures in terms of nodes (individuals within the network) and the ties that link them - Yields several measures-- who knows whom in a network, popularity within a network, closeness between people in a network etc - Lack of inclusion in a social network is detrimental for health

Answer 7

Greater social integration is associated with lower mortality. * The fewer social ties people had, the more likely they were to die over the next 9 years * Same pattern for men and women and across age groups

Answer 8

Loneliness is transmittable ! - study found ppl directly connected to a lonely person in a social network were 52% more likely to be lonely - Loneliness grows in networks over time - Growth is particularly strong when the lonely tie is close - (friend / family member) --> 3 explanations for this: * Induction: Emotion contagion within a network * Homophily: Similar ppl are connected (like w like) * Shared environment: Exposure to the same social challenges and upheaval

Answer 9

- In modern terms, refers to social shunning - Any act of ignoring & excluding of an individual / group by an individual / a group - Why do we ostracise? Group reasons, Individual reasons

Answer 10

- Online version of a ball-tossing game - Effects of being EXCLUDED in cyberball are similar to “in person” ostracism - v effective method of inducing ostracism

Answer 11

A modern experimental paradigm that increases the realism of the ostracism experience

Answer 12

- ostracism signals DANGER (no access to social resources) - As a result, being excluded or ostracised HARMS basic psychological needs and makes us FEEL BAD

Answer 13

--> How others treat us on the basis of our group membership impacts on our mental & physical health - Discrimination can lead to ill-health through: * Stress and emotional reactions * -ve coping responses (smoking, substances...) * Reduced access to resources (education, medical care) * Physical injury via racially-motivated assault

Answer 14

--> Stimulation hypothesis --> Displacement hypothesis

Answer 15

Social media can strengthen social ties: - Active use to connect with others - Online communication can stimulate self-disclosure, which improves rs and well-being

Answer 16

-->Social media can weaken social ties: - Passive use is associated with less perceived social support & worse well-being - easier than f2f communications --> Social comparison is problematic - frequent users think others are happier / better lives - comparison anxiety predicts greater depression

Answer 17

How we use social media matters - Active vs. passive: engaging socially vs. lurking - Motives for use: connect with others vs. avoid social anxiety

Answer 18

1. Don’t criticise, condemn, or complain 2. Give honest, sincere appreciation 3. Arouse (cause) in the other person an eager want 4. Become genuinely interested in other people 5. Smile 6. Rmb that a person’s name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound 7. Be a good listener; encourage others to talk about themselves 8. Talk in terms of the other person’s interests 9. Make the other person feel important - do it sincerely

Answer 19

1. Making a first impression 2. Updating a first impression 3. Getting to know someone

Answer 20

Snap judgements Thin slices Person perception

Answer 21

- Lack of sufficient info RARELY stops us from making judgements about others - snap judgements: quick impressions based on the most brief of glances --> a study showed ppl faces and had them rate those faces on a range of traits --> some at own pace, others rated after seeing the faces for 1s, 1/2s, or 100 ms - traits assesses: attractiveness, likeability, trustworthiness, and aggressiveness

Answer 22

--> Our judgements of others predict consequential decisions, (voting behaviour) - Politicians with faces judged to be more competent after 1s exposure = 69% MORE LIKELY to win their election - Replicates when the faces are shown for 1/10 s - Snap competence judgements made B4 an election accurately predict who will win that election in 70% of cases

Answer 23

--> The ability to find PATTERNS in events based on “thin slices” (narrow windows of experience) - Our ability to draw relatively accurate conclusions ab the emotions & attitudes of ppl in SHORT interactions - a study had participants form judgements of UNI LECTURER & HS teachers * judgements were based on 10s vids of the person teaching *Participant judgements were compared against student evaluations (of lecturer) and principal ratings (of hs teacher) *results: strong similarities btwn ppl's ratings of uni lecs when they knew the person rlly well

Answer 24

--> Judgements based on 2 primary dimensions: - warmth and competence

Answer 25

Traits that help us assess others’ intent in a social context - "Are this person’s intentions toward me good or bad?” - Friendly, kind, sincere, generous, helpful, tolerant, understanding, fair, honest

Answer 26

- Traits that help us assess others’ ABILITY to ACT on their intent - "Can this person carry out their intentions toward me?” - Skill, efficiency, confidence, intelligence, clever, knowledgeable, foresighted

Answer 27

- Warmth and competence are INDEPENDENT - Warmth judgements PRIMARY, and made quicker than competence judgements

Answer 28

We like to form well-rounded impressions of ppl, meaning we assume qualities about ppl even if we don’t hv evidence ab those qualities --> “innuendo effect” study Warm: - “Pat seems like a very nice, sociable, and outgoing person” - Control: “Pat made a very positive overall impression” * Competent: “Pat seems like a very smart, hard-working, and competent person - results: assume someone is bad at the other thing (non-mentioned)

Answer 29

--> Impression formation: COMBINING INFO about others to make overall judgements * Algebraically * Configurationally

Answer 30

Impressions formed on the basis of a mechanical combination of info about a person --> 3 ways of combining info: - Summative - Averaging - Weighted averaging

Answer 31

--> Based on Gestalt principles: the WHOLE is greater than the sum of its parts - An emergent impression is formed that may vary depending on the total context of the information provided - ppl combine info they receive ab someone into an overall impression that can be diff from the simple sum of items of info about that person

Answer 32

influential in impression formation

Answer 33

less influential in impression formation

Answer 34

- tested how SMALL changes to a DESCRIPTION of an individual might affect overall impression formation 1.A person was described as: Intelligent, skilful, industrious, WARM, determined, practical, cautious 2. Intelligent, skilful, industrious, COLD, determined, practical, cautious - Participants asked how likely the person was to also possess other traits

Answer 35

--> We like familiarity - Mere exposure effect: the more we're exposed to something, the more we like it - study: mere exposure effect among students * 4 people attended psych lectures but didn’t participate * Varied the number of lectures attended: 0, 5, 10, 15 --> We like similarity - study: - Real couples were more similar to each other than “random couples” in most cases - ACTUAL similarity --> predict liking in short interactions; - PERCEIVED similarity --> in existing relationships -The LESS we know about someone, the MORE actual similarity affects liking (because we have little info to based on) --> we like people who r attractive - there is considerable variation in what people find attractive and we find people we like more attractive than people we don’t like

Answer 36

- Healthy patterns of communication foster more satisfying social bonds - Communication that builds TRUST improves relationships * Sharing with others * Self-disclosure - Self-disclosure begets more self- disclosure: norm of reciprocity !! BUT... self-disclosure at inappropriate / irrelevant times can lead to reduced liking and closeness.

Answer 37

Respond appreciatively when the other person tells you about themselves.

Answer 38

1. obedience; tell ppl what to do 2. persuasion: talk ppl around 3. social norms: more subtle forms of influence

Answer 39

--> examine how individuals could obey orders that instructed them to HARM others Participants: * The EXPERIMENTER * The “teacher” (naive participant) * The “learner” (confederate) - Teachers instructed to increase shock voltage w each incorrect response - Confederate learners consistently made errors and reacted verbally to the shocks (an act) --> Results: - Most teachers showed great deal of emotional conflict and wanted to stop the experiment - V few psychiatrists thought participants would administer shocks at the ‘XXX’ level, but in reality, most participants (68%) administered shocks to the ‘XXX’ level --> demonstrates the power of obedience --> High rate of obedience factors: - The authority figure has high status - Participants believe the authority figure is responsible for consequences - No clear-cut point to switch to disobedience - gradual escalation : following orders little by little has has mild consequences, Results (diff versions of study): - varied obedience - only a few continued to max voltage - the majority disobeyed (at some point) - Factors that reduced likelihood of obeying included a non-committed experimenter, having a close relationship with the learner, and seeing other people disobey

Answer 40

--> Burger (2009) study with more ethical conditions:’ 150 volts, pre-study interviews w a clinical psychologist, told 3 times they could withdraw from the study - Found similar results - Ppl w greater DESIRE for CONTROL and more EMPATHETIC concern for others were more reluctant --> Shock Room - Almost everyone refused to administer the final shock - Being told “you have no other choice” - final straw for ppl

Answer 41

--> study designed to simulate prison life - Participants: Prison guards / Prisoners - “Prisoners” were arrested & brought to the basement of the building; - Some “guards” began tormenting & abusing prisoners - A no. of “prisoners” became emotionally disturbed --> Results: supposed to last for 2 weeks, but was stopped after 6 days

Answer 42

- Not an experiment - Despite the brutal conditions, only 30% of guards behaved cruelly - Self-selection: - Demand characteristics - Motivated leadership

Answer 43

shows how we CONFORM to roles and BEHAVE in ways expected by the situation

Answer 44

--> Compliance is higher when ppl are in +ve mood --> 2 main reasons - mood COLOURS our interpretation of events: requests seem LESS INTRUSIVE when we FEEL GOOD! - emotion maintenance: we want to CONTINUE feeling good, and granting a request is one way to do so

Answer 45

- We often make decisions by weighing the pros / cons of engaging in a particular action - Some persuasion attempts are focused on CHANGONG ppl's decision - Reason-based approaches INDUCE (persuade) compliance by providing GOOD REASONS for ppl to agree to a request

Answer 46

When someone does something for us, we feel pressure to help in return - expected return of benefits both ways - failure violate a social expectation

Answer 47

- confederate bought a participant a soft drink during an experiment - Later, the confederate explained they were selling raffle tickets - Participants who were given the soft drink bought TWICE as many raffle tickets as those not offered a soft drink

Answer 48

--> Once a choice has been made, ppl feel pressured to act consistently w that commitment

Answer 49

- participants asked to take part in an experiment. They were informed the experiment started at 7am b4 / after saying they would participate. * > half agreed when told the start time after * < half agreed when told the start time up front

Answer 50

- asking for a v large favour that will probably be refused - then following the request w a more modest favour - drop in size of request appears to be a concession (compromise) - fueled by RECIPROCITY

Answer 51

- make a smaller requests - then follow up with a larger request which was the real request all along - fuelled by COMMITMENT

Answer 52

--> Explains how ppl change their attitudes in response to persuasive messages - 2 pathways to persuasion: - Central: ppl think carefully & deliberately about the content of the message, - Peripheral: ppl attend to EASY- TO-PROCESS, superficial cues related to argument

Answer 53

--> Our tendency to CONFORM to the behaviour of others around us can be harnessed to achieve compliance --> study - gave household info ab their own energy use in comparison to their neighbours - People changed their behaviour to FIT THE NORM: * Above-average users used less energy * Below-average users used more energy

Answer 54

--> Majority influence --> Minority influence

Answer 55

STUDY: - a group of students perform a simple task w obvious answer - The correct answer was v clear - Each person called out their judgement publicly, - Only 1 participant was a confederate - instructed to respond incorrectly Results: - MOST participants conformed at least once - On average, participants conformed on 1/3 of trials

Answer 56

1. Anonymity (priv vs public) 2. Expertise and status 3. Group size 4. Group unanimity (1 person's difference in answer)

Answer 57

Study: - participants asked to determine whether slides were green / blue - Participants nearly always thought the stimuli were blue - Participants could hear other people in the study, an inconsistent or consistent minority of whom said the slides were green Results: Participants conformed to the consistent minority’s opinion > the inconsistent minority

Answer 58

We are influenced by others because we want to gain their social approval - common in majority influence

Answer 59

We are influenced by others bcuz we accept info from them as EVIDENCE about reality - common in minority influence

Answer 60

--> Freud: actions are motivated by the ‘pleasure principle’ - we do things that maximise personal pleasure --> Machiavelli: humans are “fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain”

Answer 61

--> A paradigm for investigating trust & generosity - Player 1 (the allocator) is given some money, (eg $10) - Player 1 decides how much to give to Player 2 - Player 2 receives the offered amount and Player 1 receives the rest Findings: - On average, ppl give almost half even though they can give zero - 71% of people give between 40%-50% of their resource

Answer 62

- Social closeness to the recipient - Trust and prosociality (intent to benefit others) - Demographic factors - Not being econs student

Answer 63

--> Spending money on others makes us HAPPIER than spending money on ourselves - increases happiness - creates a positive feedback loop: we keep wanting to feel good - Not just about spending money: general acts of kindness improves one's wellbeing

Answer 64

= the tendency to exert LESS EFFORT on a group task where individual contributions cannot be monitored - Explains why groups r sometimes LESS PRODUCTIVE than individually - More likely on tasks ppl DC about / in groups that people don’t like - More likely when personal effort CAN'T be identified - More likely when LOW MOTIVATION

Answer 65

--> investigated social performance in an individual / cooperative rope-pulling task Results: - When pulling alone, ppl etried harder compared to in pairs / groups - The larger the group, the smaller the amount of force exerted

Answer 66

--> De-individuation: ppl feel they can ‘HIDE IN THE CROWD’ and avoid the -ve consequences of slacking off --> Equity: stereotyped ideas that ppl don’t work hard in groups, so they reduce their own effort --> Reward: ppl feel their personal effort won’t be recognised even if they try hard

Answer 67

1. ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITIES/TASKS make clear who's accountable for what 2. Establish clear standards & RULES for what good performance looks like 3. EVALUATE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE TOO!! on top of group performance

Answer 68

--> We don’t always slack off in groups: - in fact, the mere presence of others can give us a boost - 2 types of social facilitation: * CO-ACTION effects: we perform better at tasks when we do them WITH other ppl * AUDIENCE effects: we perform better at tasks when we are WATCHED by other people - More likely on EASY tasks than complex tasks - More likely when personal effort CAN be identified - More likely when HIGH MOTIVATION

Answer 69

--> Studied If Performance boost when accompanied by others engaged in the same activity - cyclists performed better when racing AGAINST each other than the clock - wound fishing experiment w children alone / in pairs --> --> Children worked faster when with a partner doing the same task

Answer 70

- Performance boost when in the presence of PASSIVE spectators - Thought to be in part cuz other people heighten physiological arousal (alert, awake, attentive) & evaluation apprehension (anxiety), --> enhance performance

Answer 71

--> Prosocial behaviour that benefits others w/o regard to consequences for oneself --> motives for altruism = Social reward, Personal distress, Empathic concern

Answer 72

If people are motivated by social reward, they may try to outdo one another in altruistic acts - people will give higher social status to more altruistic individuals

Answer 73

- researchers interacted w another participant (actually a confederate) who would be subjected to 10 electric shocks 1. Easy-to-escape condition: participant could leave after seeing 2. Hard-to-escape condition: participants had to stay through all 10 shocks - Participants’ main emotional response was assessed: personal distress (tendency to feel -ve feelings of others) vs. empathic concern (tendency to help) - Results: v low no. distressed participants agreed help in easy conditions but MAJORITY distressed participants agreed to take shocks in difficult condition - more empathic participants agreed to help in easy conditions than difficult conditions

Answer 74

- Assistance given by a witness to someone in need - We hope that ppl respond unquestioningly, but in reality people can be reluctant to intervene during seeming emergencies

Answer 75

--> male undergraduates took part in a study on “problems at an urban university” - in a waiting room participants faced an ambiguous but potentially dangerous situation in which smoke began to puff into the room * Grp 1: participants did the study alone * Grp 2: study w two CONFEDERATES trained not to respond overtly to the smoke * Grp 3: two other REAL participants Results: - Alone: participant responded to smoke - W real participants: < half responded to smoke - W confederates: only 10% people responded to smoke

Answer 76

1. Diffusion of responsibility 2. Pluralistic ignorance: (uncertain about the legitimacy of the “emergency” because others are less reactive to it) 3. Evaluation apprehension: (ppl fear making mistakes & being seen as foolish)

Answer 77

--> The bystander effect was reduced when: - The situation was more dangerous - The perpetrator (person doing harmful things) was present * The victim was a close other * Other bystanders were REAL

Answer 78

1. Reduce the ambiguity (vagueness) of the situation - gather info ab what is happening & how to respond 2. Speak up - DISCUSS w others ard 3. Invite empathy for the victim - see them as a real person with feelings rather than a nameless ‘other’

Answer 79

Actual meaning: pre-judgement - hostile attitude toward a person who belongs to a group, simply because he [sic] belongs to a group, and is therefore presumed to have the objectionable qualities ascribed to that group. * Racism * Sexism * Homophobia * Transphobia * Prejudice based on religion, SES, age, disability, political orientation, etc

Answer 80

Prejudice = attitude; discrimination = behaviour Prejudice: attitude or affective RESPONSE (+ve / -ve) toward a group and its members Discrimination: favourable / unfavourable TREATMENTS of individuals based on their group membership

Answer 81

encompases all 3 components of an attitude = ABC A = Affective (feelings ab the grp) B = Cognitive (thoughts) C = Behavioural (intentions to take action)

Answer 82

1. Blatant prejudice (‘old fashioned’ prejudice) - Explicit rejection of the outgroup - inferiority of outgroup - Opposition to contact w the outgroup * Outward expression of -negativity toward the outgroup 2. Subtle prejudice - Covert (not explicit) forms of prejudice - rejection of explicitly prejudiced beliefs while still feeling animosity (“I’m not racist, but...”) - Can be reflected in unacknowledged / unconscious -ve feelings toward outgroups - Sometimes assessed using ‘implicit’ measures that don’t rely on asking people to self-report on their attitudes

Answer 83

--> coined the term ‘ambivalent sexism’, which recognises that prejudiced attitudes can contain both -ve and +ve features 1. Hostile sexism: BLATANT, overtly -ve attitudes of women traditional gender roles (men dominance) - 2. Benevolent (kindly) sexism: SUBTLE, +ve attitudes towards WOMEN

Answer 84

--> Realistic Group Conflict Theory - Predicts (correctly) that prejudice will increase under conditions of economic difficulty, (eg: recessions, high unemployment)

Answer 85

Summer camp of 22 boys --> Boys were allocated to two groups: The Eagles and The Rattlers - Stage 1: INGROUP FORMATION (get to know) - Stage 2: GROUP CONFLICT (competition) - Stage 3: CONFLICT RESOLUTION (work tgt) - Results : low hostility (stage 1) hostility rises to peak (stage 2) hostility decreases (stage 3)

Answer 86

- Hostility can EMERGE btwn groups even w/o direct competition - Intergroup hostility can develop simply bcuz another group exists - mere group boundaries can initiate intergroup prejudice

Answer 87

--> Designed to reveal the MINIMAL CONDITIONS required for ingroup favouritism & outgroup derogation to occur - People are allocated to groups based on seemingly meaningless criteria and have no interaction with other group members 1. Participants allocated to groups based on meaningless criteria & NO interaction with other group members 2. Participants then assign points, redeemable for money, to pairs of their fellow participants 3. One amount would go to an ingroup member and the other to an outgroup member Findings: Poeple assigned LESSER points to outgroups, even if it also meant assigning fewer points to ingroup members. --> Merely categorizing ppl into new groups affects a wide variety of perceptions, evaluations, and behaviors that reveal the degree to which people FAVOUR new ingroups over new outgroups.

Answer 88

Social identity + Self-categorisation theory --> ‘the social identity approach’ - Our IDENTITY is comprised in large part of social groups we belong to - in order to feel good ab ourselves, we strive to FEEL GOOD ab our INGROUP STATUS - People who are MORE IDENTIFIED w their group tend to show greater ingroup favouritism

Answer 89

- People tend to favour SIMPLER ways of thinking than more effortful ways of thinking - hence, our tendency to categorise things and ppl - Just as a miser seeks to avoid spending money, the human mind often seeks to AVOID SPENDING COGNITIVE EFFORT

Answer 90

--> STEREOTYPES, helps us process info rapidly & effectively - Beliefs that ALL MEMBERS of a group have the SAME QUALITIES, --> Main Features: - Define people in terms of their social category membership - stereotypes are shared

Answer 91

1. - Researchers brought a baby into a class - Half were told the baby's name is Keith, the rest Karen - Participants rated the baby on stereotypical personality traits - Male and female stereotypes * Keith rated more highly on masculine stereotypes (athletic, actie, aggressive, assertive) * Karen was rather much lowly 2. - Participants watched a recording in which 2 people had an argument and one pushed the other * Half saw a BLACK person push a WHITE person; the other saw a WHITE person push a BLACK person - they rated how violent the episode was * White pusher (about 10% thought it was violent) * Black pusher (about 75% thought it was violent)

Answer 92

1. Economic Lessons - REDUCE intergroup competition & INCREASE intergroup cooperation (RECATEGORISATION) 2. Motivational lessons - set ingroup NORMS against prejudice & for tolerance (normative influence) 3. Cognitive lessons - WEAKEN effects of STEREOTYPES by exposing ppl to individuals fr lost of diff groups (INTERGROUP CONTACT)

SOCIAL Flashcards

(117 cards)