Applied Social Psychology - Lecture 4 Quiz Review PDF

Quiz Review Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:08 AM Applied Social Psychology - Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems: Social Dilemma/Resource Dilemma: - Social dilemmas: a group of situations in which individuals face important choic...

Quiz Review Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11:08 AM Applied Social Psychology - Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems: Social Dilemma/Resource Dilemma: - Social dilemmas: a group of situations in which individuals face important choices. ○ Sometimes individuals do not realize how important their choices are—or even that they are making choices—but that is a separate problem. In social dilemmas, the rewards to the individual for noncooperation are greater than the rewards for cooperation no matter what others do; however, if most individuals involved fail to cooperate, then everyone receives lower rewards. ○ Ex. a person washing a car during a dry spell. This person gains a clean car by using scarce water—the reward (a clean car) seems greater than having no reward (an unclean car)—and this clean car reward occurs, in the short term, regardless of what other community residents do. If this person is one of very few people washing their cars, a clean car reward is gained with little loss to the community water supply. However, if many people wash their cars, serious damage might be done to the water supply, and everyone receives a lower reward—having no water, or perhaps muddy water, from the community supply—and this consequence is worse than merely having a dirty car. - There are 3 main forms of social dilemma: ○ Public goods problems: involve dilemmas about whether to contribute (ex. time, effort, money) to a project that would benefit everyone when such a contribution is voluntary. § Ex. one may decide to help (or not help) build a neighborhood children’s playground. The dilemma is that contributing costs something (in this case, one’s money or time), but if not enough others contribute, the playground project will not be successful. § A person is tempted to avoid contributing to the public good (to not cooperate) for two reasons. □ First, if enough others contribute their time and/or money so that the public good succeeds, the person benefits (gets a neighborhood playground) without having to contribute anything. □ Second, contributing is risky in that a person might donate money or time, only to find that not enough others do so; if this  that the public good succeeds, the person benefits (gets a neighborhood playground) without having to contribute anything. □ Second, contributing is risky in that a person might donate money or time, only to find that not enough others do so; if this happens, the project fails, and the person’s contribution is wasted. ○ Social traps: a second form of social dilemma. They involve short-term pleasure or gain that over time leads to pain or loss. § Ex. Some classic social traps include smoking, overeating, and using pesticides. They are dilemmas because individuals must choose between an immediate reward (e.g., the pleasure of smoking, the pleasure of eating an extra dish of ice cream), and the long-term negative outcome to which the reward can lead (e.g., lung cancer, obesity) versus the choice of short-term deprivation (e.g., quitting smoking, refusing to eat the extra dish of ice cream), and the long-term positive outcome to which the deprivation can lead (e.g., a longer life, a slimmer build). § There are 2 problems that create the dilemma in a social trap: □ First, the long-term outcome usually is not certain (e.g., not every smoker dies of smoking-related disease, nor does every person who abstains from smoking live a long time). In the case of the environment, the long-term uncertainty makes it easier to rationalize choosing the environmentally damaging option, for example, using excessive water in the spring when the state of the community reservoir later in the summer is not yet known. □ Second, individuals tend to downplay the negative outcomes; for example, pesticide users usually do not think about how their pesticide use can lead to ecological problems in the future, or they believe that their own small contribution does not matter all that much. ○ Resource dilemmas: a conflict between self-interests and the welfare of a group or society at large. § Ex. Overfishing - When fish are caught faster than they can reproduce, the fish population can collapse. 3 kinds of influence relating to cooperation in the commons: 1. The nature of the resource itself (e.g., how much of it is available, how much of it is certain to exist). For example, in the typical study above, what if the lake contained 1,000 fish, or 25 fish, instead of 100? What if, in the case of a real lake, counting the fish is difficult, so scientists must estimate the fish population? Their best estimate is that the lake contains 50–150 fish. How would that affect the fishers’ harvesting? 2. Involves the social conditions or rules surrounding the harvesting (e.g., how well  certain to exist). For example, in the typical study above, what if the lake contained 1,000 fish, or 25 fish, instead of 100? What if, in the case of a real lake, counting the fish is difficult, so scientists must estimate the fish population? Their best estimate is that the lake contains 50–150 fish. How would that affect the fishers’ harvesting? 2. Involves the social conditions or rules surrounding the harvesting (e.g., how well the harvesters know and trust each other; whether a leader exists, is elected, or acts in a certain way). What if the four fishers are all good friends, or all strangers? What if the four have a boss, or they know that a game warden is nearby? 3. The characteristics of the harvesters themselves (e.g., their values, their needs, or their experience as fishers). What if one of the fishers has four children and another has none, or two fishers are very aware of the concept of sustainability, and two others have never heard of the idea? Norms intervention using park signs to impact petrified wood stealing: - Descriptive vs. Injunctive Norms: ○ Descriptive norms describe what most people do (e.g., "Many visitors take petrified wood"). ○ Injunctive norms indicate what people should do (e.g., "Please don’t take petrified wood"). - Study on Park Signs & Wood Theft: ○ Researchers tested four types of signs using different combinations of: § Descriptive vs. Injunctive Norms § Positive vs. Negative Wording ○ They measured how many pieces of petrified wood were stolen under each sign condition. - Key Findings: ○ Negatively worded injunctive sign ("Please don’t take wood") was the most effective at reducing theft. ○ Negatively worded descriptive sign ("Many visitors take wood") led to the most theft by reinforcing the idea that stealing was common. - Real-World Implications: ○ Messages that highlight how common an unwanted behavior is (descriptive norms) can backfire. ○ Public campaigns should focus on injunctive norms to effectively reduce undesirable behaviors. Normative messaging intervention to reduce home energy conservation: - Normative Messaging & Behavior Change: ○ Schultz et al. (2007) studied how normative messages influence behavior, including home energy conservation. ○ Many people overestimate undesirable behaviors (e.g., drug use), and correcting these misperceptions through descriptive norms can reduce the behavior.  - Normative Messaging & Behavior Change: ○ Schultz et al. (2007) studied how normative messages influence behavior, including home energy conservation. ○ Many people overestimate undesirable behaviors (e.g., drug use), and correcting these misperceptions through descriptive norms can reduce the behavior. - Boomerang Effect: ○ While some social norm programs reduce undesirable behaviors, others have little effect or even increase them. ○ This "boomerang effect" occurs when people who engage less in an undesirable behavior than the norm shift toward the average, increasing their undesirable behavior. - Experiment on Energy Use: ○ 290 households had their electricity usage measured. ○ Some received only descriptive norm messages (comparison to average usage), while others also received injunctive norm messages (approval/disapproval via smiley/frowney faces). - Results: ○ Descriptive norms alone reduced energy use for high consumers but increased it for low consumers (boomerang effect). ○ Adding injunctive norms prevented the boomerang effect, helping interventions be more effective. Veitch et al. - Better buildings and Psychology: There are three ways in which psychologists can contribute to ensuring that the effort succeeds: 1. They can establish the evidence base for the environmental conditions that are to be created in buildings and can demonstrate the value— to individuals and to organizations— of delivering those conditions with energy-efficient technologies. 2. They can improve our understanding of how decision-makers choose to adopt, or not to adopt, new technologies. 3. They can become directly involved in the process of knowledge mobilization to ensure that codes, standards, and guidance documents correctly incorporate psychological knowledge and insights. Understanding Decisions: - Focus on Individual vs. Organizational Environmental Behavior: ○ Early environmental psychology research emphasized influencing individual behaviors (e.g., turning off lights, using public transit). ○ While useful, single large decisions (e.g., purchasing an energy-efficient refrigerator) have a greater impact than small, repetitive behaviors. ○ More recent research examines organizational decisions that affect energy use, such as building design and operations.  behaviors (e.g., turning off lights, using public transit). ○ While useful, single large decisions (e.g., purchasing an energy-efficient refrigerator) have a greater impact than small, repetitive behaviors. ○ More recent research examines organizational decisions that affect energy use, such as building design and operations. - Challenges in Encouraging Energy-Efficient Investments: ○ Incentive programs since the 1970s have had limited success in reducing building energy consumption. ○ Many decision-makers still rely on economic rationality (e.g., return on investment), despite evidence that this alone does not drive energy-efficient choices. ○ Psychological barriers to climate action exist, and better models are needed to predict decision-making. - Psychological Theories & Their Application: ○ Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Values-Beliefs-Norms (VBN) Theory explain individual pro-environmental behavior. ○ TPB was found to predict 95% of conservation behavior, while VBN explained 64%. ○ It is unclear if these models apply to organizational leaders' decisions about sustainability. ○ Economic research suggests that alignment with organizational goals influences sustainability decisions. - Technology Adoption in Organizations: ○ A modified TPB model (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) explains why employees adopt or resist new technologies. ○ Organizations are less likely to adopt energy-efficient building upgrades if they require high effort (e.g., vacating premises for retrofits). ○ Adoption is more likely if the upgrade reduces absenteeism and improves staff retention. - Key Takeaway: ○ To drive environmental change, organizations' decision-making processes must be better understood. Economic rationality alone is insufficient, and psychological factors (effort, expected benefits, norms, and strategic fit) play a major role in adoption.