Social psychology week 6 notes
Social psychology week 6 notes PSY 270-001
Popular in psy orientation soc psy
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Psychology
verified elite notetaker
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Bailey Anderson on Friday September 30, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSY 270-001 at Indiana State University taught by Dr. Sheets in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 14 views. For similar materials see psy orientation soc psy in Psychology at Indiana State University.
Reviews for Social psychology week 6 notes
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: 09/30/16
Social Psychology Week 6 Notes Consider the following: Professor sent Christmas cards to people he didn’t know what happened?: people sent cards back I receive surveys all the time, and though better than most, don’t always return (at least not promptly) I received a survey with a $1 I sent it back immediately: why? you feel an obligation Reciprocation there is a perhaps universal rule for return of favors o So powerful, it works even if favor is uninvited o Demonstrated experimentally as follows: 2 “S” in a study of art appreciation Cond 1 after exp, S2 (confederate) offers raffle ticket (25c) Cond 2 during break S2 buys S1 coke (5c=1960) What happened? In cond1 1 ticket sold, cond2 2 tickets sold o That’s not all= “sweetening the deal” Bake sale: Cond 1: 2 cupcakes + 2 cookies, 75c Cond 2: 2 cupcakes 75c, but before deciding +2 cookies free Result: 40% of approaches cond 1; 73% cond 2 Reciprocal Concessions or “Door in the face” o Outrageous request followed by smaller=salesperson has done a “favor” by reducing request you feel compelled to “return” by complying with smaller request o Blood drive: cond 1 will you come back next week?, cond 2 will you come back every 6 weeks for next 3 years? No? okay how about just next week? Results: 43% cond 1; 0 at first, then 84% cond 2 o Interestingly, people fell more satisfied with purchases/decisions involving this technique o How can we avoid being taken (without discarding impt social norm)? be aware of tactics Commitment and consistency basis of “contracting” in therapy and behavior modification o Sales tactics: phone company “are you the type who likes to save money?” “what would it take for you to buy the care today?” o Variations: foot in the door (small request, then bigger) calling to ask questions about household products you use for “The Guide”=small request. 3 days later: expanding publication 56 men for 2hr to record all household products. Must have full freedom to go through cupboard and storage places. Control (no small request): 22% yes Exp (foot in the door): 53% yes o Lowball: make a lowprice offer, then when commitment, take away basis of commitment. Care sales: promise to sell for X, but manager says no o Bait & switch: make a lowprice offer, then when S shows to purchase, subst a lowerquality product for price Social proof/conformity we are influenced by others, sometimes consciously (go to a new church) o Also unconsciously – laugh tracks (longer and harder) o Sales/advertising examples? Most popular model Customers made us #1 PBS drives o Sherif: “autokinetic effect” Ss estimated movement of light in inches across several days. They were watching the light either alone or in a group (saying inches out loud). When alone, their answers are all over the place. When in group, they said answers that were similar. o Research shows that men conform to women’s att in fashion o Asch: wanted anthro, not soc psych, but got interested in imp form Would people conform when task was unambiguous? Chose task everyone could do: choose like A,B, or C to match other line 99% correct (1% wrong) in solo trials Group of 4 confederates and one S: 37% of time S would give knowable wrong answer. No punishment or reward, yet people conformed Why? – normative social influence: based on need for social approval Evidence: with one dissenter (gave right answer), conformity dropped to 6% but when dissenter conformed, S did (to 30%). Conf dropped with private responding (others wouldn’t hear) o Descriptive norms= what people do (situational) o Injective norms= what people should do (transsituational carry with you) Clean or littered environment: S given paper to litter or not Conf walks by (control) Conf drops mcdonalds bag on ground focus on descriptive Conf picks up bag focus on injunctive If conf drops bag, S litter. If conf picks up bag, S doesn’t litter. If clean ground, S doesn’t litter. Petrified forest: Either put up no message, descriptive (many people stole wood and changed forest) sign or injective (do not steal wood to protect beauty) signs. 3% vs 7% vs 2% We tend to underestimate social influence. o Energy conservation: survey that asked why should we conserve energy? (protect env, save money, bc others do it). “because of others” rated low; but best predictor. Exp: least “motivating” people who got messages that neighbors were trying to conserve energy, used less energy. o Goes well beyond perception o Philips: publicizing suicides increases the amount of suicides Authority o Milgram student of Asch decided to study “conformity” without groups, conformity with expectations of other 3 players: 1 experimenter, 2 subj (one confederate) Subj recruited from newspaper for money Procedure: upon arrival, S was paid ($4.50). subj told experiment was about punishment and memory. Draw for “role” of teacher versus learner (both said teacher so subj always got teacher). Teacher was to give test, increase shock with every wrong answer; no response= wrong answer. Teacher shown shock machine 15450 volts (ex dangerous) to convince it was real, they were hooked up and given a little jolt Confederate was strapped into chair while subj watched. Could not see while shocking, could only hear. Conf was suppose to say certain things at certain volts (let me out, I refuse to continue, cant stand the pain scream, and then silence) 63% continued to 450 volts (6 more levels after conf went silent) Experimenter gave generic statements : the exp requires you to go on Nobody went to go check on confederate after done or after quitting Why did people obey? Authority figure giving commands experts know best If subj watched another teacher do this, 90% compliance if other rebelled, 10% compliance Often authorities do know best, why is it peripheral? central involves thinking and rationally thinking, peripheral avoids thinking and just reacting to the cue not thinking on own (subj followed because experimenter supposedly knew what they were doing)
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'