Social Psychology PDF

Fundamental Concepts 1 Cognition: mental process of understanding the information Attention: conscious focus on specific things. It can be selective or automatic (Perception is not bound by attention) Concentration of awareness Selective attention: depends on cognitive effort to point out the irrele...

Fundamental Concepts 1 Cognition: mental process of understanding the information Attention: conscious focus on specific things. It can be selective or automatic (Perception is not bound by attention) Concentration of awareness Selective attention: depends on cognitive effort to point out the irrelevant info (inhibition) Attention is automatically attracted by salient info Info is salient when its vivid and it stands out, it is there to take your attention easily and its out there Salience: that attracts attention Memory Short term: limited temporal span of 18-30 seconds Attention based Limited capacity Percetually organised - Baddeley’s model of working memory: Sensory input is by see: visa-spatial, hear: phonological, make sense: episodic All come to the central executive of the working memory and them being stored ia the long term memory - Magical number 7+2, short term memory can store unto around 7 times of chunks of info Long-term: long term span of lifetime duration Recalled voluntalirt or by association Large and limitless capacity Sematically organised İt is an associative network in which the items are stored as nodes associated by links to each other Organized within schemas 1.2 There are two ideas of rationality Absolute olympic rationality: logic, philosophy, economics Bounded ecological rationality: cognitive psych, behavioural econ The features and the (hardware and software) limits of our cognitive system and our social environment shape and effect the wa we think and how we interact with others. 3 Basic Info Processing Principales - accessebility: easily retrieved concepts, influence info processing. retreiving concept from LTM when processing new info. Depends on -receny(when a concept is retrieved from LTM it remans easily accessible for some time) -frequency(when that concept becomes chronically accessible) -goals(relevant concepts are more easily retrieved than irrelevant concepts) - conservatism: once we form views and opinions and attitudes we tend to maintain them. Cognitive resources are limited so we update the (knowledge, beliefs and  attitudes) only when strictly necessary. We tend to favour what confirms our prior positions =biased info processing Bias: general pattern or tendency to think in a certain way regardless of how appropriate the context is. Primacy effect: tendency to hold info presented first as a greater consideration than info presented later. Confirmation bias: tendency to seek and interpret info that collaborates our initial beliefs and dicounts the info that disconfirms them. (Backing our initial belief and fighting what’s against it) -superficial/deep processing Process info with different degrees of scrutiny depending on our cognitive resources and motives İnfo can be processed through two alternative systems depending on the availability of cognitive resources and motivation System 1: quick, automatic, intuitive, heuristic Background info, simple tasks System 2: slow, voluntary, logical, systematic Salient info, complex unusual tasks Heuristic: mental shortcuts, simple rules to perform a cognitive task. Based on previous experience with analogous tasks and provide sub-optimal (good enough) readily available solutions Heuristic processing (system 1) can outperform systematic processing (system 2) even in complex tasks. = shifting between system 1 and 2 allow us to use appropriate amount of resources for each task motivation: factor driving and guiding cognitive process and behaviour 3 Basic Motivational Principles Mastery: seek understanding of other people and events, predict events and other people’s behaviour. Allows to exercise sufficient degree of control on our social world. Affiliaton: connect with other people and be part of groups Social connections and group memberships are a source of support and protection which also provides us with info o how to deal with the world Valuing ‘me’ and ‘mine’: see ourselves and our groups in positive light Positive self-value is associated with self-relice and social status we strive to fell secure and desirable to others Attidues Formation and Change 2.1 Attitude formation and change Attitude: thought and ideas affecting the beliefs emotions and behaviours My being mad at someone=> me acting not friendly to them Expression by evaluating something on positive or negative attitude objects: any significant actual object, person group event or concept can be Attitudes are persistent organisation of beliefs, feelings and behavioural tendencies towards an object How attitudes are formed: - direct experience  - observed experience - info shared by others (or the media) - indi or group deliberation/discussion Attitude has 3 components: 1) cognitive: knowledge and beliefs 2) affective: feelings and emotions 3) behavioural: pas experience and future intentions Features: Value/valence: how positive or negative Strength: mild/moderate/extreme Accessebility: how easily we recall (our attitude towards an object)= recency, frequency, goals Self awareness and disclosure: how aware we are of our attitude and how comfy we are discussing it with others Social desirability: tendency to presentsth on a socially acceptable way, conforming with the perceived expectation of others 2.2 Attitudes are individual complex cognitive structures They are difficult to evaluate Psychometrics: study of measurement of attitudes Two types: 1) direct or explicit -provide numerical or semantic framework of reference to quantify and report their attitude Self report measures: ->single item evaluation scale Question statement, numerical scale very negative 1 ----- 10 very positive ->likert scale Positive and negative Statements, multiple items, numerical scale Completely agree 1----7 comp. disagree -> semantic differential State your position, Semantic range and polarity (good/bad, strong/weak, active/passive, stable/unstable, right/wrong) 2) indirect or implicit Measures based on observation of individuals psychological or behavioural reactions -galvanic skin response: two electrodes put at second and third finger of now hand. Variation of a low-voltage is applied. Measures the continuous variations in the electrical characteristics of the skin. Like conductance caused by the variation of sweat. -pupillary response: dilation or squeezing of the pupil is controlled by the sympathetic (fight or flight response) and parasympathetic systems (rest and digestion) IAT implicit association test Greenwald and banaji 1999 Originally developed to investigate covert(hidden/secret) attitudes, that indvs are reluctant to share due to social desirability Series of trials of behavioural response(ex. Pressing a button) is associated with multiple targets representing attitude objects Associations are switched and combined differently throughout the test and each response times are measures Reflects individuals implicit associations will have shorter response times than those reflecting counter-attidunial associations Research has shown existence and relevance of truly implicit attitudes Attitudes individuals are not completely aware of These can affect us in subtle but important ways [ ] reducing explicit attitude consistency across time and situations [ ] interfering with explicit attitude formation (ex. selective exposure) “They are given two things that are associated with each other and the response time is lower Mcdonalds or Burger King When things are not associated with each other its easier to decide and there is a higher response time Pizza or Tiramisu This also depends on the persons perception Like if you are a vegetarian you could pick Burger King because they have vegan options But iid you are a big McNuggets person you could pick McDonalds Bu çok doğru olmadı*” 2.3 Attitudes can change by internal(deliberation(uterine kafa yorma), cognitive dissonance reduction) or external (exposure to info(marketing technique), social influence, persuasion) forces Cognitive dissonance: Attitudes beliefs and emotions and behaviours are not always consistent with each other like you can believe someone is in the wrong but can treat them different than you would treat someone who is also wrong. Realizing the difference is when we experience cognitive dissonance *Becoming aware of the inconsistencies between attitudes and behaviours. This creates a discomfort which can motivate us to change our behaviour or adapt our attitudes by -ignoring or denying them Justfying them Freframing them Attitudes towards animals and meat eating (Researchee were shown pictures of the animal and what it transforms into as food, at the end of the experiment they were presented with meat and fruit snack which fruit was more chosen) **Basically not acting according to your beliefs, and realising it. Exposure to info Subliminal messages in promoting things can significantly increase in sales -exposure to a previously unknown object (basically a brand new object) does change the attitude towards the object in a positive way OVER TIME, more welcomed. = mere exposure effect This depends on cognitive conservatism; we tend to evaluate more positively concepts that we are familiar with. Tekelden touch blue isteyince kent d range sorması ve benim çok yanaşmamam gibi Attitudes were initially considered good predictors of behaviour, but it is not always the case. Sometimes attitudes result in no behaviour or counter-attitudinal behviour. Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen 1991) Behaviour is predicted by intentions and not attitudes Intentions are influences by attitudes and subjective norms regarding the behaviour Perceived control also has effect on behaviour. Social Cognition 3.1 how do we make sense of others: - impression formation - social judgement how do we make sense of events: - attribution - casuality - responsibility and blame We sense of others by Impression formation (we create a descriptive image of others), and Social judgement We make sense of events by attribution, causality, responsibility and blame Impression formation: Individuals processing descriptive and evaluative judgements to a target person. Its an inferential (çıkarımsal) process inferential=> global impression is derived from limited available elements of Physical appearance Obseved behaviour Communication = impression is created by these factors which are globally common Its theoretical models: -bottom-up: characteristics of the perceived target (Algebraic model) (Anderson 1965) Global impressions are formed as the sum of single traits which each trait having fixed positive and negative values= (being smart +1, being annoying -2.... 1+2+1-2=2 gibi) -top-down: mental schema of the perceiver (Configural model) (Asch 1946) Impressions are formed as configurations of central (peripheral) positive or negative traits -smart, messy, warm, cold insecure, tidy You might be very chatty, intelligent, helpful BUT you seem cold = overall impression is negative There are key factors when determining the impression which are the central traits. A different approach: How people describe others, using two main dimensions Initially defined as intellectual good/bad and social good/bad - stereotype content model Fise and colleagues 2002 analysed the content of common stereotypes regring social groups. Aimed social targets Stereotype: socially shared belief and evaluation of members of a social group -mixed: characteristics of the target and social and contextual rules (Big two/three/four model) (Abele&Wojciszske 2007) Proposes more refined labelling Agency(getting ahead) vs communion(getting along) *communion=collective agency=put yourself first* Further splits were made: agency= leadership(decided, resoled, tenacious, dynamic), competence(competent, intelligent, efficacious, knowledgeable) communion= sociability(sociable, friendly, caring, helpful), moralitty(honest, loyal, trustworthy, sincere) 3.2 communion v agency In social judgements; communion is more important than agency. Because communal traits are recognised and processed more quickly than agents traits. They are sought first and more frequently and more chronically accessible. Because: The ability to detect others intentions creates an evolutionary advantage Individuals being able to discriminate between friends and foes moved this ability onto next generations=survive and kill Someone being ahead of you is not preferable but you having people that are by your side is more important because far before in generations that is how people survived to begin with. Friends were passed, foes were killed. Hence we give more importance to communion. It is more relevant and desired for others. Negativity bias: when we process info about someone we prioritise negative information. It pops up Negative communal behaviour is more diagnostic than negative agent behaviour *Why do we give more importance to communion over agency? -- communial traits are recognised and processed more quickly -- sought first and chronically more accessible -- more relevant and desired for others -- negativity bias -- more diagnostic -- getting along gives you the evolutionary advantage of detecting others’ intentions. Helps discriminate between friends and foes – negative clues are more revealing Situated social judgements Flexible, content specific İn many sştuations we can deviate from default rules - what is a good friend like group member like - what’s a good boss or employee like Also important on deriving an idea depending on content specific situations, it’s also flexible. There are default rules of more likely/not likely. It is important when selecting and evaluating peers depending on the goal of the interaction Able & back 2013 Analysed the importance of peers agency and communion traits in different relationships: independence (classmate, neighbour) -higher communion mutual dependence (group project, tennis doubles) -higher agency unilateral dependence (borrowing notes, hitch-hike) -higher communion The findings= change depending on self-profitability Work relationships are asymmetrical in self-profitability between the employer and the employee Employer’s pov: employees agency is profitable, communion is irrelevant Employees pov: employers agency is profitable, communion is relevant *Distinction between leadership and competence is more visible in work environments. Employers agency can be less irrelevant in certain situations, like in a competitive business model competence is higher than their morality. State-run business is the opposite. ? Groups provide us support. We want the members to be agents, especially the leaders. Members’ morality is important also, because it shows the connection/adherence of the group. Black sheep effect: In-group members who don’t conform to group norms are judged more harshly than out-group members who perform the same behaviour. (grup kurallarına uyum sağlamayan iç-grup üyeleri, aynı davranışı yapan dış grup üyelerine kıyasen daha sert bir şekilde yargılanır.) Evaluating politicians: Heuristic: sezgisel Candidate evaluation is where it’s used widely among voters. ex. American voters rely on characteristics more than previously thought when deciding. “Is there anything about the candidate that might make you want to vote for them?) This trend was wider than uneducated voters but increased with education. Voters use cues to detect candidates positions on matters and come to conclusions of their likely behaviours if elected. - basic personal characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, appearance, clothing) - information of the candidate’s affiliation to relevant social groups (wealth, religion profession) (trump has wealth and impact, ex. Trump towers) - personality and behaviour Communion part: İn social judgements communion is more important When electing a rep. many communal trait are relevant: - morality (honesty, trustyness) - political scandals (negative effect) Agency part: Strong leadership is needed Elected’s competence is profitable 1- Impression formation 2- Create descriptive image of others 3- Use those to make judgements about them and our interactions with them 4- evaluating others on agency and communions depends on: - type of relationship/interaction we have with them - the goal of that interaction - self-profitability of the interaction - membership in a social group and the status of it 3.3 Attribution and biases (Atıfta bulunma, referencing) We seek explanations for behaviours and events Different theories propose different models of how we explain others behaviour based on diff factors: 1) disposition vs. situation (Heider 1958, jones&davis 1965) Most basic distinction: is the behaviour attributed to actors disposition or the situation Dispositional(eğilimsel) attributions: psychological inclinations/tendencies, motivations and attitudes We can infer disposition from: (bunlardan eğilim çıkarımı yapabiliriz) -freedom: was the actor constrained? -commonality: was the behaviour exceptional? -desirability: was the behaviour rewarded socially? We can determine if a behaviour is attributed to a persons dispositions (correspondent inference) *attributional process is not always flawless Situational attributions: physical, temporal, biological, social circumstances Correspondence bias: tendency to make unfair/unwarranted dispositional attributions**? (eğilimsel atıflar) Outcome bias: infer intentions from the outcome, or the consequence of the behaviour Personal relevance effect: conclusive and extreme attributions of behaviours that affect us Actor-observer effect: dispositional attributions on others behaviours, and more situational attributions on our own behaviour. Self-serving bias: dispositional attributions for our positive behaviours and situational attributions for our negative behaviour Group-serving bias: dispositional attributions on positive behaviours and situational attributions on negative behaviour, at the group level linguistic intergroup bias* Situational: elaborates more on the behaviour= De Jong made a hard tackle Dispositional: elaborates more on the actor= de Jong is a violent player 2) acts and situation covariance (iki değişkenin beraber değişimi) (Kelley 1967) 3) We infer the cause of the behaviour by observing/recalling from memory/ how it covariates across situations and actors - distinctiveness of the actors behvaiour across situations - consensus on the behaviour within the situation among the actors 4) locus, controllability, stability (Weiner 1985) Has three factors: - locus: internal vs external - stability: stable vs unstable - controllability: controllable vs incontrollable you failed an exam. why did it happen: 3.3,5 post election attributions Post-election attribution Causality(nedensellik): we have both formal-logic and intuitive(sezgisel) understanding social pscyh studies -Factors that lead to applying intuitive or formal causality. (Superficial vs. Deep processing info) -Rules of intuitive causal attribution (sezgisel nedensel atfetme) -Consequences of causal attribution in terms of responsibility attribution, blame assigning and social reproach attribution: atıf etmek. “O yapmıştır” deme işi. Intuitive causality (Sezgisel nedensellik) We prefer causes that are closer in time and space (over remote ones), accessibility* coherent with our existing beliefs, conservatism* simple superficial/deep processing* We tend to prefer; human causes over natural/mechanic ones and voluntary and controllable over incontrollable Birine atfetmenin içsel nedensel sebeplendirmesi Yakın zamanda olması, var olan düşüncelerimizle denk olması, çok karışık olmaması, insani olması, isteyerek ve kontrol edilebilir olması. Controllable and uncontrollable causes Controllable, human: person doing sth Uncontrollable, human: someone else doing sth while a person is a bystander and affected Uncontrollable, natural: something happens that affects them also Research shows people find the controllable and human more responsible cause. Regardless of its position in the story time. In addition to causal factors, these also have impact on inferences. - outcome of the events - intentions of the actors Intentions are inferred by actors past behaviour motivation and disposition, not always relevant* Backward causal attribution: Counterfactual thinking We make by comparing real outcomes with hypothetical outcomes. “Araba kazasından kurtuldun ama ağzına sıçıyolar ama diyosun ki ölmedik ki amk” Counterfactual thinking is a form of mental simulation in which antecedents of an event are changed in order to get a different outcome. “If there wasn’t a strike I wouldn’t be late” We generate counterfactual thinking when negative surprising or exceptional events occur. (Routine norm break) When someone behaves inconsistently with social roles and strereotypes. (Social norm break) It can focus on different actors, depending on whose action or decisions were mutated/broke the stereotype to obtain the different hypothetical outcome. “We wouldn’t have crashed if we stopped at the yellow light. We wouldnt have crashed if the other driver slowed down” Counterfactual mutation can result in hypothetical better or worse scenario Self and Identity 4.1 self: reliatively modern concept. James 1890 divided into subject-self (i) and object-self (me) Psychoanalytic theory deconstructed the self with the idea of subconscious (freud 1990) then proposed structural model composed of Id Ego and Super-Ego (Freud 1923) “Cognitive: mental process of knowing learning and understanding” Self-consciousness (öz bilinç): subjective experience of our cognitive functions Self-awareness (öz farkındalık): awareness of ourselves as objects in the world. We are aware of several features of self-awareness, organised into schemas around different contexts and rules. 3 self schemas (Higgins 1987) 1- the actual self (how we think we are) 2- the ideal self (how we would like to be) 3- the ought self (how we think we should be) Self-discrepancy(tutarsızlık/inconsistency) theory: Actual v ideal self discrepancy: sadness, dissapointment, dissatisfaction (Olduğunu düşündüğün v olmak istediğin) Actual v ought self discrepancy: anxiety, worry, shame (Olduğunu düşündüğün v olman gerektiğini düşündüğün) Difference is different emotions, which turn into self-regulation=> attempts to change one’s actual self to match to ideal or ought self. Regulatory focus (düzenleyici odaklar) theory: Depending on which self-guide is more salient(belirgin), momentarily or chronically Indus have different regulatory focuses. - Promotion focus: motivation to pursue hopes and aspirations, approaches self-regu strategies - Prevention focus: motivation to live unto duties and obligations, avoids self-regu strategies Promotion regulatory focus(terfi Düzenleyici odak): leads to increased sensivity to rewards, potential gains and status-quo imporvement Prevention regulatory focus(önleme düzenleyici focus): leads to increased sensitivity to punishment, potential threats, status-quo maintainment. regulatory focus manipulation Both show how human cognition can be influenced. - task priming: activating neutral pathways or cognitive schemas to make related concepts and responses more accessible. Indv is aware of the stimuli but not conntect it to the task “Think about a positive academic outcome that you want to achieve and describe the strategies to promote this outcome successfully” - subliminal priming: operates on unconsciopus mind subtly activating certain associations and emotional responses. Indv is unaware of the stimuli entirely Self-efficacy (öz yeterlilik): Belief of being able to successfully execute tasks to achieve a certain goal Task-specific, content-specific “Efficacy: one’s success and confidence is the general expectation in life” Influenced by -mastery exprerineces (practices) -vicarious experiences (modelling) -communication (persuasion) -physiologyical feedback (ex. Perceived tension) Self-esteem (özsaygı): Derives from evaluation of ourselves through self or social comparison we make to ourself. Self-esteem regulation depends on internal and external mechanisms. We are motivated to maintain a positive self-esteem but also have an accurate perception of reality, we make social comparison with slightly inferior(aşağılık) standards. Downward comparison: low informativeness, high self-esteem Optimal: high inform, moderate self-esteem Upward: moderate infom, low self-esteem *social, practical and technological constrains alter social comparisons creating a biased self-evaluation. 4.2 Identity What makes me stand out of the crowd What makes me part of a certain crowd Social identity theory: The portion of one’s self-concept, derived from being a member of social groups Relative salience(göreceli önem) of personal vs social identity depends on the context we’re in. Social identity effects what we think of ourself, and our cognition, emotions and behaviour towards others Social identity is intergroup relations, personal identity is individual and interpersonal relations. Social group: two or more people who share a certain characteristic, develop shared goals and interests and form a collective identity. Shared group identity can be based on assigned characteristics (gender age nationality) or chosen ones (personal interests preferences). They can ben contingent(şartlı) or long-lasting. Social group: people on the subway NO, gs fans in seyrantepe metro going to the game YES Functions of self-categorisation (meta-contrast principle); Minimise intra-group differences (occurrences in a single group: gs fans men and famale all) Maximise inter-group differences (occurrences between two or more distinct groups: gs and fb fans) We tend to classify ourselves into groups that provide us sufficient differentiation and positive self-evaluation (optimal distinctiveness principle) Once we self-categorised in a group we are motivated to maintain the positive self-esteem derived from it. Our attitudes and behaviours towards members(in-group) and members of other groups(out-group) reflect this motivation (in-group favouritism): you give more money/attention/praise to people in your own group Social identity and status Self-categorisation as a member of a group does not lead to a positive self-evaluation because group status function can change by different factors, in which are only partially controlled by some group members. Certain groups have high status associated with positive self-evaluation (ex. Doctors, have pride in their profession and receive respect) some have low status with negative self-evaluation (ex. Unskilled laborers, perceived as low education, feeling of unvalued) When group boundaries are permeable(geçilebilir): Low status groups get de-categorised into individual mobility and re-categorised into high-status group When group boundaries are impermeable: Unstable and illegitimate status creates intergroup competition which leads in antagonism, collective action and conflict, resulting in change in status When group boundaries are impermeable: Stable and legitimate status creates social creativity which leads to re-categorisation, re-framing and innovation, resulting in change in group and self-evaluation *People from diff cultures attribute different importance to the personal and social components of their selves. Prejudice and Discrimination 5.1 sterotype and categorisation Not all groups are treated equally Social categoisation -> stereotyping -> prejudice (self justification) -> discrimination (including indv/personality factors and social/envi factors) People spontaneously categorise indvs into groups with common characteristics to save cognitive resources, satisfy affiliation and self-esteem needs Categorisation is an essential process in social identity formation Members of a category or group are perceived similar to each other and different than the rest (meta-contrast principle) Stereotyping: socially shared beliefs and evaluations of members of a social group. Results from individual perception, communication and social influence processes. Can diverge substantially from reality. Degree of accuracy is critical. The valence (value( can be positive negative or mixed. Awareness can affect the cognition and behaviour towards the members of a stereotyped group. This is called stereotype threat. People can involuntarily conform to the social cues they got exposed from environment. 5.2 Prejudice: individual negative attitude toward members of a social group. Can be based on personal experiences and stereotypes. It has cognitive, affective and behavioural components. Discrimination: can range from overt acts (aşikar eylemler) of harassment to targeted indv or groups to less evident forms such as exclusion, separation and aversion (hoşlanmama, isteksizlik). Can become a social norms and can be formalised as state law. Relationship between prejudice and discrimination isn’t always consistent. people choose to act on their prejudices depending on the situational constrains and social desirability. (LaPierre 1923) *stereotyping through institutional intervention like separation causes prejudice (hitler’s) which is a form of discrimination. Hitler’s prejudice became a stereotype by communication like propagandas. Justfying discrimination Even though these are widespread engaging in it as a behaviour arises cognitive dissonance. Indvs reduce this dissonance by denying humanity of the discriminated target. They put the target outside of the common human group hence making it legitimate and acceptable. (ex. Black Lives Matter) Dehumanisation (İnfrahumanisation) are based on reduced attribution of human properties. Depending on what kind of attribute is denied to discriminated indvs, two types are possible. - animalistic: no rationality, civility, culture= no agency - mechanistic: no emotional responsiveness= no communion Frustration-aggression hypothesis Increase in prejudice and discrimination can be observed in periods of social and economic unrest. (Dollard and Miller 1939) When an external force blocks an indvs goal pursuit it creates the psychical drive of “idle” “boşluk” towards an alternative target, leading to aggression. Indvs and groups who are targeted of prejudice become convenient scapegoats to attack. ?? Authoritarianism Authoriatarian traits are seen in indvs with prejudiced attitudes who engage in discriminatory behaviour Authoritarianism is a product of developmental deficits and parenting styles (Adorno 1950) 3 main components of right wing authoritarianism RWA (Altemeyer 1991) - conventionalism - authoritarian aggression - authoritarian submission Social dominance orientation (Pratto 1999) some indvs endorse a worldview based on hierarchical relations on social groups People with SDO consider One group prevails/hükmetmek over others as normal and desirable which makes discrimination legitimate. This hierarchy ca be base don status, socio-economic conditions, ethnicity, gender or etc. *Social categorisation -> stereotyping -> prejudice -> discrimination Contact hypothesis Prejudice can be reduced by contact between members of different groups (medcezir yaman ve ender Serez) (Allport 1954) Intergroup contact would activate indv cognitive process; increased knowledge about prejudiced group and greater familiarity, reduced fear and anxiety. Also start a social re-categorisation process, cross-group commonalities become more evident. This contact can be beneficial if the intergroup contact is; - prolonged in time - collaborative - between equals in status - supported by social norms and authorities *extended contact: using ambassadors, hence indirectly *imagined contact: creating positive expectations *negative contact: negative experience is more important than positives so this can backlash Social Influence 6.1 Social Influence is the scientific investigation of how thoughts, feelings and behaviours are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others several ways which indvs and groups change other peoples attitudes emotions and behaviours sources: - mere presence: social facilitation and loafing - communication: persuasion - social norms: conformity - power: obedience and resistance social facilitation (kolaylaştırma) our cognitive and physical tasks can be improved by the presence of others Triplett 1897 found that cyclists were faster when racing against a partner than alone and against a clock. and children perform tasks better together than alone. - motivational factors (challenge) - informational factors (comparison) - attentional factors (distraction-conflict) social loafing (kaytarma) performance can also be hampered by the presence of others, especially in cooperative tasks. Ringelmann 1913 found that indvs put decreasing effort in group tasks when the number of people in group increased. - loss of motivation (free-riding) - loss of coordination (bystander effect) bystander effect: Darley&Latane found that indvs tendency to refrain from intervening in situations of danger when people are also present. for example someone is being harassed in a metro station, noone does sth because they all think someone else will step up. what shall be done according to the foundings is: 1-noticing the problem 2-interpreting the situation 3-acknowledging the responsibility 4-knowing how to act 5-acting 6.2 social norms other people influence us even when they are not present. social norms are rules and standards that are understood and accepted by a group whom have according cognition and behaviour. indv perspective: norms have an informative value showing what’s considered appropriate and what will be sanctioned. have 2 types depending on how they are transmitted; formal(ex.laws), and informal(ex. manners) and also distinguished as; descriptive(frequency): based on the observation of other people’s behaviour. indvs spontaneously imitate others, then complying with the norm. effects; Burger and colleagues provided participants with hints of previous participants’ behaviours creating different descriptive norms in different conditions. participants complied with the activated norm which confirmed that indvs check for cues of other people’s behaviour and use them as descriptive norms to guide their own decisions. “when you see no cigarette buds on the street, you also not tend to throw it on the ground either. injunctive(social approval): based on explicit or implicit expectations from the social environment. indvs decide to comply with the norm to gain approval and avoid sanctions.  Robinson 2014, comparison of effects of descriptive and injunctive norms on food choice, found that descriptive norms were more effective injunctive norm: eating veggies is goof for your health descriptive norm: the student population eat more veggies social norm formation Muzafer Sherif 1936, how social norms are created and how indvs conform to them; norms arise from indvs assessing others’s behaviours and converge on average positions. the norm becomes an internal guide for indvs evaluations. Sherif used the autokinetic effect, a random optical illusion to induce different indv assessments of movement of a light dot. participants first reported their estimate how far the dot moved, then did the same task in smal groups sharing their indv assessments, then repeated the task individually again. others went through two phases in reverse (first small group then indv) indv to group norm: their reported distance decreased a lot when switched to group from idv, and continued to decrease as the group trial continued, conforming more as they go group to indv: their reported distance decreased within the group stage, and decreased minimal in idv stage. Influence from Power power in social relations power: ability to exert/force an influence on someone derives from an asymmetry in social relations with different dimensions - Reward: when one party grants or withdraws access to a resource for compliance or disagreement - Threat: one can impose punishment for non-compliance - Information: one has access to info allowing greater control of the social environment - Authority: one has been acknowledged as a legitimate higher status in the social structure - Leadership: one can induce respect, admiration and identification Obedience to authority Why people comply with authority in extreme ways, like in WW2. - Adorno 1950, certain cultural,developmental,clinical features result in an authoritarian personality. - Milgram 1963, relationship between indvs,authorities and victims shape obedience. - teacher asking questions to students and give increasingly strong electric shocks if student responds incorrectly. Some refused to continue and majority of participants reached final volt. = propensity to obey to authority depended on: - physical proximity to the victim - physical proximity to the authority - perceived legitimacy of the authority - group pressure - Stanford Prison Experiment Zimbardo 1971, guards and prisoners. to find what extent participants behaved in conformity to their roles. Guards showed increasingly disturbing sadistic tendencies the study was suspended and finished half early. Its scientific validity is considered limited. Obedience to authority its the delevopment of modern research ethics rules and practices. - before taking part in a study, participants must be briefed and give full informed consent. - precise rules for opting-out must be specified in advance - final debriefing must provide all info participants require, if any form of deception was used it must be revealed. - all research centres must have a formal ethics committee for screening and authorising studies. Resistance (History and everyday experience suggests,) resistance to conformity and disobedience to authority are possible and frequent. Even in some experiments some participants at some points refuse to comply. 1970s Moscoviti, minority influence is evidence of disconnection between power and social influence. (Now searchs 2013 Van Zomeren, collective action and social change in social identity.) Majority influence: (Moscovici 1976) Majority was the only source of influence. In reality there are many cases where minority (indv or group wout power status) can exert influence - leads to public compliance - source is salient - messages are superifical(yüzeysel) Minority influence: is smaller in number/quantitavely than majority influence. Qualitative difference is how individuals process information coming from. - leads to private scrutiny - content of the message is salient - messages are processed deeply Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation 7 Realistic conflict Explains that, groups competing for scarce resources causes intergroup conflict Realistic conflict model is applied on zer-sum game situations. Competition over material resources exists on the interpersonal level too, but the intergroup context boosts it *zero-sum game: like game theory or tennis, there is one winner, and in equivalence, there is one loser. The sum of their results is 0. 1 win - 1 lose = 0 Competitive intergroup relations promote distrust, prejudice and discrimination towards outgrip members. Also increases cohesion between in-group members. Group leaders use external threats to rally together their followers and strategically manage the group identity (making it more inclusive or exclusive) Sherif and Sherif 1961, teste realistic conflict theory and analysed the effects of situation-induced competition on intergroup behaviour *three week summer camp with 11 year old boys. Posed as the camp staff manipulating the boys actives creating two groups and posing them against another in a competition. Boys behaviour was analysed for intra and intergroup conflict signs. - First phase; boys camped altogether and bond freely to form friendships - Second phase; boys were split into two groups isolated from each other. Each group started developing its own identity, showing hostility to the other group. - Third phase; two groups were brought together again engaging in group-based competitive activities with prizes to the winners. Intergroup hostility escalated, derogatory nicknames, pranks and fights occurred. - Fourth phase: they introduced common activities that awarded a common prize, were cooperative as a single groups could not achieve the the goal. in this phase intergroup hostility decreased and cross-group bonds were re-established, a common identity started developing. conflict was easily triggered given certain conditions, cooperation required more effort and careful planning. Relative deprivation Sometimes the source of the conflict is not the scarcity of resources, but the unequal distribution of it. Social comparison causes members to perceive that their access to the resources is more limited than the other group Relative deprivation: perception that one’s group having/receiving less than it deserves. Can be egoistic(individual condition) or fraternalistic (group condition). It’s more elusive than realistic conflict, derives from multiple and non-material forms of inequality. Perception of one’s in-group being treated unfairly can increase or decrease by focusing group members’ attention on different dimensions, or by making prospective changes in status more salient than actual. Relative deprivation and collective action Unfairness in intergroup relation is a key factor in collective action, but it is not sufficient to engage indvs in group action. Other necessary factors; - politicised identity: strong identification and commitment to the group - collective efficacy: perception of the groups ability to reach them - moral conviction: strong shared beliefs on legitimacy of the current situation Intractable conflicts -The intergroup conflict and hostility can remain even if the open confrontation has ended. -Stereotyping, polarisation and outgrip assimilation can hinder the positive resolutions of conflict -During and after conflict, groups can compete over their status of victims caused by other groups aggression Groups can compete over being the other groups aggression’s victims, or engage in competitive victimhood (rekabetçi kurbanlık). Reconciliation NBMR 2008, reconciliation is often hindered by the opposite needs of the conflicting groups -Victims suffer from lack of self-determination and need to be empowered (establishing their sense of agency) -Perpetrators suffer from damaged moral image and need their actions to be recognised as legitimate (re-establish their sense of morality) Most conflict resolution strategies fail to address the different needs of groups, resulting in partial/superifical forms of reconciliation. Forgiveness The apology-forgiveness cycle is an effective mean of intergroup conflict resolution. Cooperation look back at Sherif’s study, fourth phase a good example of intergroup cooperation is the international efforts towards climate change mitigation. COP conventions are organized at national level but in addition to the common interest, different nations have different interests to pursue. Reworking identities we often see group identity as stable and immutable but it often changes and group members are losen. our social identity evolves accordingly. social identity doesnt reflect what group members are but can show what they want to be. leaders can construct/deconstruct/reconstrucy group identities by choosing relevant categories to shape group boundaries, relevant outgroups to oppose or integrate. Identity construction models de-categorisation: group identities are ignored, all are treated as individuals superordinate identity: group identities are substituted by a new more inclusive identity dual identity: group identities are reframed as a part of a more inclusive indentity