Social Psych Week 8
Social Psych Week 8 Psych 360
Popular in Social Psych
Popular in Psychology (PSYC)
This 6 page Class Notes was uploaded by Katie Truppo on Friday August 26, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to Psych 360 at University of Tennessee - Knoxville taught by Dr. Lowell Gaertner in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 4 views. For similar materials see Social Psych in Psychology (PSYC) at University of Tennessee - Knoxville.
Reviews for Social Psych Week 8
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 08/26/16
Interpersonal Relationships (Cont. 2) III. Interdependence Theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) A. Satisfaction and Dependence 1. Average outcome (AVE): take pros and cons of relationship, ﬁnd AVE goodness/what you’re getting out of relationship 2. Comparison Level (CL): what you expect to get out of a relationship, satisﬁed or unsatisﬁed 3. Comparison level for Alternatives (CL-ALT): level of outcome you think you could get in your next best relationship/by yourself Why remain in a bad Relationship? B. Transformation of Motivation C. The Investment model of Commitment (Caryl Rusbult 1983) Dependence is subjectively experienced as commitment Commitment is psychological state of dependence 1. What Aﬀects Commitment? Commitment = Satisfaction – Alternatives + Investments 2. Commitment (i.e., dependence) Aﬀects Relationship Maintenance A. Stay vs. Leave E.g., Rusbult and Martz (1995) Completed measures of the investment model and accommodation at an abuse shelter Tracked who returned to abuser and who left Found that committed women were more likely to return, dependent women with low alternatives returned B. Accommodation When committed, tendency to suppress gut level instinct to respond destructively when partner is behaving badly E.g,. Rusbultt, Verrette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipcus (1991) Completed measures of the investment model and accommodation Accommodation measure: series of statements describing negative partner behaviors & potential reactions When my partner yells at me, I: (a) think about ending our relationship, (b) avoid my partner, (c) talk to him/her about it, (d) give my partner the beneﬁt of the doubt and forget about it. C. Willingness to Sacriﬁce Willingness to sacriﬁce other things to protect relationship E.g., Van Lange, Rusbult, Drigotas, Arriaga, Witcher, & Cox (1997, Study 1) Completed measures of the investment model and willingness to sacriﬁce (WTS). WTS: Ps listed the 3 most important activities in their life (outside of their relationship) “imagine that it was not possible to engage in Activity X and maintain your relationship with your partner. To what extent would you consider ending your relationship with your partner?" (0 = deﬁnitely would not consider ending relationship, 8 = deﬁnitely would consider ending relationship)” People who were more committed were more willing to sacriﬁce for relationship E.g., Van Lange, Rusbult, Drigotas, Arriaga, Witcher, & Cox (1997, Study 2) Time 1: Couple separately completed measures of Study 1 Time 2: Couple separately completed stair task (step-up-and-down a step as quickly as possible in 1 min) Repeat stair task and told partner would be paid $0.10 for each step beyond previous total More committed and willing to sacriﬁce, the more steps people did Social Inﬂuence Social inﬂuence examines how behavior changes in response to social pressures Conformity: behaving in response to indirect pressure, want to liked or right Compliance: behaving in response to a direct request Obedience: behaving in response to a direct order I. Conformity A. Conformity in an Ambiguous Situation: Sherif’s Autokinetic Study Auto kinetic eﬀect: light in dark room looks like its moving but it’s our eyes moving Study had people initially estimate how much light was moving, then got in groups to discuss how much it was moving Initial estimates varied more than group estimates, converged B. Conformity in an Unambiguous Situation: Asch’s Line Judging Study Answer is clear, but people still conform to wrong answer 5 people sat in table, 1 real participant Random trials scripted to unanimously agree, participant agreed with wrong answer 75% of participants would conform at least once C. Two Reasons to Conform: To be Right and Liked Informational social inﬂuence: use other people to be right social inﬂuence: want to ﬁt in and be liked Deutsch and Gerard (1955) 1. Informational Social Inﬂuence: The need to be right 1. Personal Source: our own experiences and knowledge 2. Social Source: information from others 2. Normative Social Inﬂuence: The need to liked e.g., Schacter (1951) Johny Rocco Study (deviant and moderate) 3 participants, 2 researchers Had to ﬁgure out how to punish fake juvenile delinquent 1 researcher told to go against group, other go with group, watched how they were treated Early on, discussion with deviant. Later, he was ignored. After session, decided who got horrible task and who got good task, group punished deviant with horrible task Insko Experiment 1 participant, 4 researchers Asked what color crayon was (ambiguous color) Manipulated if told there was a right answer or no right answer Manipulated if had to say answer out loud or privately Each variable had own eﬀect, not dependent on each other II. Compliance A. The Norm of Reciprocity Norm that if someone does something for us, we feel obligated to do something in return Eg., Reagan (1971) 1 participant, 1 researcher Shown pictures of art and rate preferences for diﬀerent paintings Take a break, researcher does nothing or brings participant a coke At end of study, researcher asked participant to buy raﬄe tickets Participants given the coke bought more tickets B. Foot in the Door Eﬀect Agree to do something small in order to get you to agree to big request E.g., Freedman & Fraser (1966) Called homes in 1960’s Asked either: “Will you allow a team of six persons in your home for 2 hours to classify all items stored in kitchen?” Or, called once before in the week to ask about type of soap used Big request: 22% said yes Small then big: 53% said yes Compliance to Big Request Only Big Small-then-Big 22% 53% Additional studies suggest: Agreeing to the initial request, not actually completing the small request is necessary Small & large request need not come from same person Why? Only thing that matters is agreeing to ﬁrst request C. Door in the Face Eﬀect Intentionally ask big request, then follow up with small request, more likely to comply with small request E.g., Cialdini, Vincent, Lewis, Catlan, Wheeler, & Darby (1975) Researchers walked around campus, asked either: "Would you be willing to work with juveniles for the next 2 years for 2 hours a week”, followed by “Will you chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a trip to to the zoo?” Or, just “Will you chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a trip to to the zoo?” Only chaperone was 17% agreement, big then small was 50% agreement Compliance to Smaller Request only Big-then- Smaller Smaller 17% 50% Additional studies suggest: Big & Smaller request must come from same person - not a contrast eﬀect 2ndrequest must be smaller – not a persistence eﬀect Since person changes request, we feel we owe them (reciprocity) D. Low-Balling: Get Person to Commit then reveal the negatives E.g., Cialdini, Cacciopo, Bassett, & Miller (1978) Call people, told about study Either “would you participate” then “it’s 7 AM Saturday” Or, “would you participate in a study at 7 AM Saturday" Condition Agree Show-up % of Agree who Show- up Control (participate in 31% 24% 79% study @ 7AM?) Low-ball (participate?…@ 56% 53% 95% 7AM) Why? Maybe knowing about negatives after make it less bad
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'