Unit 1 - Social Psychology Notes PDF

Unit 1 : Social Psychology Zimbardo - role internalization Sherif - conflict development Milgram - following orders fromm superior...

Unit 1 : Social Psychology Zimbardo - role internalization Sherif - conflict development Milgram - following orders fromm superior Latone & D - bystander effect Asch - conformity Social thinking determines social behavior → social cognition Frits Heider(1958) “we can credit the behavior to the person’s stable, enduring traits, or we can attribute to the situation” Fritz Heider Disposition → stable, enduring traits Situational → situation Attribution theory → assumptions of others behavior Fundumental Attribution Error → Dispositional Attribution and Self-serving Bias Dispositional Attribution → an assumption that you make about sombody else, considered an error even if your right because you don’t have all the information when you make the assumption Self-Serving Bias → assumptions on our own behavior Sucess = disposition → when a good thing happens you explain it with dispotional traits Failure = situational → when a bad thing happens you explain it with situational traits Interpersonal Attractions PHYSICAL ATTRACTION Similarity Principle https://knowt.com/note/932e6f95-12dc-4d7e-96ad-3ffc7d81fe58/Unit-1--Social-Psychology 12/13/24, 2 19 PM Page 1 of 13 :  Propinquity/ Proximity Reciprocity Social Facilitation → we generally preform better on tasks when there is an audience people sometimes shoe an increased level of effort as a result of the real,imagined,or implied presence of others Social Loafing → phenomenon of a person exerting less effort to achieve a goal when they work in a group than when working alone Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) → an experiment run by Zimbardo to study Role Internalization put an ad in the newspaper at the college asking for white physically fit men received 75 applications selected 24 men 12 men would be prisoners and 12 men would be guards 2 week study Prisoners → Zimbardo arranged for the men to actually be arrested by police and to tell subjects that they were being chrged with armed robbery men received a full booking procedure and were forced to change into smocks before being blindfolded and taken to the “prison” Guards → met with Zimbardo the day before the experiment and were told to do whatever necessary to keep peace as long as they did not physically hurt the prisoners uniform was a kahki outfit and shadded sunglasses The “Prison” → located in the basement of Jordon Hall at Stanford 3 cells, designed to hold 3 prisoners each solitary confinement cell Set-up → prisoners were to dtay in their cell all night and day for the 2 weeks while guards were organized into 3 - 8 hour shiftsa nd could leave https://knowt.com/note/932e6f95-12dc-4d7e-96ad-3ffc7d81fe58/Unit-1--Social-Psychology 12/13/24, 2 19 PM Page 2 of 13 :  after their shift was over At First → guards felt akward delivering orders but got comfortable with their positions fairly quickly waking prisoners up in the middle of the night to make them do push-ups Rebellion on 2nd day → prisoners in cell 1 barracaded the door, took off their hats, and ripped their numbers off of their uniforms. ended when guards made prisoners in cells 2 & 3 strip naked and sprayed the first cell with fire extinguishers Psychologial Traits one of the guards thought that prisoners should be rewarded for behaving created a privilege room Aftermath → experiment was cut short and lasted 6 days prisoner 8612 was released from experiment after 36 hours becuase he was showing signs of insanity 1/3 of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies Abu Ghraib (2003) → real world example of the Prison experiment during the war in Iraq, US and Central Intelligence personell used extreme torture tactics, raped, beat, and used attack dogs on prisoners Role-Internalization → how quickly people fall into the roles assigned to them Deindividualization → loose a sense of responsibility for our actions when it is done in a group Group Polorization → when our views get more extreme when we are in a likeminded group Groupthink → you keep reservations to yourself to keep harmoney in the group Robber’s Cave Experiment(1950’s) → Muzafer Sherif Robber’s Cave Oklahoma Realistic Conflict Theroy https://knowt.com/note/932e6f95-12dc-4d7e-96ad-3ffc7d81fe58/Unit-1--Social-Psychology 12/13/24, 2 19 PM Page 3 of 13 :  how conflict develops between groups studied how conflict developed investigated what worked to reduce group conflict boys who were 11-12, white, protestant could participate thought that they were participating in a summer camp but parents knew it was a research study Sherif and researchers conduct extensive research to ensure boys don’t know each other Phase I - Team Building boys arrived in 2 groups - the eagles and the rattlers spend time with members of their team without knowing about the other team build commaraderie engaged in social categorization In-Group Bias → prefer memebers of their own group Out-Group Bias → anybody that is not in the in- goup Phase II - Competition competitive tournament between groups games include: baseball, tug-of-war, swimming,etc. winning team received prizes and trophies Findings relationships between groups were tense trade names and insults, fights, etc. teams became cohesive burning flags, raising cabins Phase III - Conflict Reduction researchers brought groups together for fun activities: having a meal, watching a movie did not work Superordinate Goals → goals that both sides care about Sherif and team staged problems at the camp that required both groups to work together to solve https://knowt.com/note/932e6f95-12dc-4d7e-96ad-3ffc7d81fe58/Unit-1--Social-Psychology 12/13/24, 2 19 PM Page 4 of 13 :  the problem Camps water supply stopped working → both groups had parts to fix the water flow Food truck got stuck and could not deliver food → boys had to work together to get it unstuck Findings through Phase III in some instances contact hypothesis doesn’t work working on superordinate goals reduce conflict stopped name calling → freindships took the bus home together one group got drinks for the other Recreation Psychologist Lotfi Diab of Beirot created it with 18 boys 5 christians and 4 muslims → thought it would cause conflict but the group still became very close The Milgram Experiment(1961) → how far are we willing to go when told to do something by a superior Context/Background 80% of those killed during the Holocaust were in 1942-1943 consider- this was a time when front lines were in France, Africa, etc. Those left = common citizens not hard- line Nazis In Rwanda, children as young as 11 were killing and mutilating others https://knowt.com/note/932e6f95-12dc-4d7e-96ad-3ffc7d81fe58/Unit-1--Social-Psychology 12/13/24, 2 19 PM Page 5 of 13 :  Set-Up Confederate →someone who is in on the experiment Naive Subject → person who knows nothing about the experiment Confederate and Naive subject put together in a room and draw papers out of a hat to decide who will be the teacher and who will be the learner both peices of paper say teacher to ensure the Naive subject is the teacher learner is hooked up to electric shocks teacher(naive subject) is given $20 and told that they can leave at any time and https://knowt.com/note/932e6f95-12dc-4d7e-96ad-3ffc7d81fe58/Unit-1--Social-Psychology 12/13/24, 2 19 PM Page 6 of 13 :  will still be able to keep the money electricity machine can go up to 450 volts volts of electricity are fake and the learners shouts of pain are actually a recording learner claimed to have a heart problem but said that it was minor learner stopped responding after 300 volts Commands told to the teacher if they tried to leave in order of use: please continue the experiment requires that you continue it is absolutley necessary that you continue you have no other choice: you muct go on Prediction → 0.1% of subjects will go to 450 volts Results → 65% of subjects went to 450 volts https://knowt.com/note/932e6f95-12dc-4d7e-96ad-3ffc7d81fe58/Unit-1--Social-Psychology 12/13/24, 2 19 PM Page 7 of 13 :  Changes that reduced obedience peers refusing → if they knew others were refusing they were more likley to refuse conflicting demands → if there were two scientists in the room that gave conflicting demands, they were more likley to refuse physical proximity → if the teacher and the learner were in the same room, then they were more likley to refuse Recreation Sheridan & King conducted a similar study but they used actual volts of electricity and puppies Bystander effect Kitty Gerovese killed in an ally originally reported that there was 37/38 bystanders that heard her screams and did nothing Latone & Darley Smoke Experiment when one person is alone in a room and smoke comes in, they will go and tell someone when there are multiple people in the room, they will continue on as if nothing has happened Latone & Darley Seizure Experiment when one person is on the headset they will run and find someone when multiple people are on headsets, no one will go and find help Pluralistic Ignorance → if we are unsure of what to do in a social situation we will look to others in the room a situation in which majority of group members privatley reject the norm, but go along with it because they assume, incorrectly, that most others accept it “No one beleives, but everyone thinks that everyone beleives” Diffusion of Responsibility → if you are alone, you accept 100% of the responsibilioty, but if you are with others the https://knowt.com/note/932e6f95-12dc-4d7e-96ad-3ffc7d81fe58/Unit-1--Social-Psychology 12/13/24, 2 19 PM Page 8 of 13 :  responsibility is divided a person is less likley to take responsibility for action or inaction when other bystanders or witnesses are present Solomon Asch What extent do social forces alter peoples opinions? Which aspect of the group influence is most important - the size of the majority or the unanimity? Set-up: 5 confederates and 1 naive subject would ask the subjects to tell them which line out of A,B,C was closest to the standard line Results About 1/3 (32%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went along and conformed with the clearly https://knowt.com/note/932e6f95-12dc-4d7e-96ad-3ffc7d81fe58/Unit-1--Social-Psychology 12/13/24, 2 19 PM Page 9 of 13 :  incorrect majority on the critical trials about 75% of participants conformed at least once, and 25% of participants never conformed Variables that increased conformity perceived expertise → have participants explain their expertise and what their career is (say they have PHDs and degrees) Perceived negative reaction → have participants react negativley when the naive subject answered correctly instead of stating the incorrect answer to conform with the group Variables decreasing conformity Having a confederate in the room → if there were two naive subjects in the room, they were more likley to both say the correct answer because of the unanimity (after experiment naive subjects typically claimed that having another naive subject in the room did not help them to answer correctly and that they would have answered correctly regardless of their prescense. Anonymous Reporting → the naive subject would write their answeres on a peice of paper instead of saying their answers out loud. They wrote their answers down privatley instead of saying their answer to the group. Persuasion Techniques Persuasion at it’s core: attractive people,famous people, and experts are more persuasive communicators educated people are less likley to be persuaded by advertisement with a relatively uniformed audience, a one-sided message is best with a more sophisticated audience, it https://knowt.com/note/932e6f95-12dc-4d7e-96ad-3ffc7d81fe58/Unit-1--Social-Psychology 12/13/24, 2 19 PM Page 10 of 13 :  may be more effective to consider both sides and offer a refutation Central Route of Peruasion focusing on the facts and logic of the argument. Deeply processing all the content of the message. Peripheral Route of Persuasion involves other aspects of the message, including the characteristics of the person giving the message persuaded to act by almost anything other than the actual content of the message Compliance Techniques Foot-in-the door phenomenon if you can get people to agree to a small request, they are more likley to agree to a larger, follow-up request for example: if a friend misses class and they ask to borrow your notes and you comply, they are more likley to ask for you entire notebook 1966 - Freedman & Fraser made telephone calls to a group of women, asking them to answer questions about their use of soap products. This small request was followed by a larger request that they allow a group of men to visit their home and take an inventory of the products that they owned. 52.8% of the original group complied 22.2% of 4th group complied https://knowt.com/note/932e6f95-12dc-4d7e-96ad-3ffc7d81fe58/Unit-1--Social-Psychology 12/13/24, 2 19 PM Page 11 of 13 :  Door-in-the-Face Technique Pareidolia - part of brain that recognizes faces refusing a large request increasing the liklihood of agreeing to a second, smaller request for example: negotiating a pay raise with your boss. First you make a request that will not be met and ask for 20%. When this is refused you make a more realistic request and ask for 10% 1975 ASU - Cialdini Cialdini asked a group of participants a large initial request: whether they would agree to be mentors for prisoners for. two years. He then asked this of another group, then followed up the question with a request for them to escort children around a zoo. The participants tended to agree to this second, smaller request, Even though it also required time and effort, it was more reasonable than the initial two-year commitment request Low-Ball Technique agreeing to purchase something at a given price increases the liklehood of agreeing to purchase it at a higher price when buying a car the salesman agrees a price, but must “check” with his https://knowt.com/note/932e6f95-12dc-4d7e-96ad-3ffc7d81fe58/Unit-1--Social-Psychology 12/13/24, 2 19 PM Page 12 of 13 :  manager if it is acceptable. While waiting you think you have secured a good deal. The salesman returns and says the manager would not agree to the deal and the price is raised. Most people agree to the higher price 1978 - Cialdini Cialdini asked students whether they would participate in a psychology experiment that started at 7am and most students refused. In an experimental condition Cialdini asked students whether they would participate in an psychology experiment, even though they weren’t told the time most students agreed. Later they were told it started at 7am and given the chance to drop out of it if they wanted. On the day of the experiment 95% turned up. 40% of students participated in the first group when told the time immediatley https://knowt.com/note/932e6f95-12dc-4d7e-96ad-3ffc7d81fe58/Unit-1--Social-Psychology 12/13/24, 2 19 PM Page 13 of 13 :