Social Psychology 2401 Week 7 Notes (10/10 to 14/10)
Social Psychology 2401 Week 7 Notes (10/10 to 14/10) PSY 2401
Popular in FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Psychology
This 6 page Class Notes was uploaded by Asmaa Abdullah on Friday October 14, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSY 2401 at Temple University taught by Melinda Mattingly in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 20 views. For similar materials see FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY in Psychology at Temple University.
Reviews for Social Psychology 2401 Week 7 Notes (10/10 to 14/10)
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 10/14/16
10/10: Continuation of Week 6: Reduction of Prejudice ● Contact Hypothesis ○ contact with people different than us ○ contact has to be positive ○ if you have a negative experience, it might create prejudices or strengthen the already existing prejudices ○ Equal Status ■ of equal status and power ■ student and student ■ employee and employee ■ etc.. ○ Social Norms of Equality ■ prejudices can be reduced through legislations ● civil rights movements, women can vote, marriage equality ■ people are equal ○ Mutual Interdependence ■ the people interacting together have to be mutually dependent ■ this helps to create positive contact ■ Superordinate goals ● when you have to cooperate with people in order to complete the task ● needing to rely on people ○ Oneonone interactions ■ ‘ideal’ ■ helps to create positive contact ■ less overwhelming than groups ■ Multiple Contacts ● if we have only one interaction with someone, we tend to see that person as an exception to the rule ○ ○ Jigsaw classroom ■ one of the first ways of application of contact hypothesis ■ researchers said that the participants had to make a presentation about one of the states ■ each person had to get a piece of information but they had to combine them to present ■ they found that prejudices were reduced ■ they also found that they also liked school better ■ violates oneonone, so it doesn’t fall under contact hypothesis ● Social Cognitive Processes ○ Recognizing variation of an outgroup ■ thinking of the different kinds of people in an outgroup ■ assuming there are other kinds of people in an outgroup ○ Prejudices are malleable ■ people who recognize that prejudices are able to change ■ knowing that prejudices can be changed reduces prejudices ○ Perspective taking and empathy ■ thinking about prejudices from other people’s perspective ■ this helps create empathy and recognizing that they are human just like us Chapter 7: Conformity ● Social Influence ○ Change in behavior due to the real or imagined influence of others ● Conformity ○ Tendency to change to be consistent with group norms ○ it is automatic ○ when you don’t conform ■ your amygdala is especially active (where ‘negative emotions’ are) ■ it is uncomfortable for you ○ Informational social influence ■ we conform when we don’t know what to do in a situation ■ conformity resulting when a person believes others are correct ■ others are not necessarily correct, but we follow anyway ■ we are especially likely to do this in ambiguous/novel situations rather than situations where we know what to do ■ Sherif (1936) ● optical illusion of a light in a completely dark room ● ambiguous task ● participants had to tell how far the light was moving ● they had to do it with other people in the room too ● first step, when alone, the results are pretty variable ● second step, the larger the group of people, the more similar the results are ● third step, when participants did it alone again, they had the same results/guesses as when with the group of people ● all participants were real, so it was a matter of following the leader ■ Crisis Situation ● we are more likely to do informational social influence because we don’t have time to think of what to do ■ Importance of being accurate ● if it is really important for us to be correct, we are more likely to do informational social influence ○ e.g. court trials, lawsuit ● we believe that others are correct, we follow their lead 12/10: ● Continuation to Conformity: ○ Normative Social Influence ■ Conformity intended to gain approval and avoid rejection ■ going with the flow so you wouldn’t stand out from the crowd ■ doing what is ‘normal’ even if it isn’t right ■ Solomon Asch (1951) ● placed people around a table ● ‘7 participants’ (6 confederates and 1 real participant) ● studies if people will conform even if the conformity is obviously incorrect ● 76% conformed to the obviously wrong answer ● other version of study: when other participants can’t see the real participant’s answer, conformity is almost nonexistence ● shows that social acceptance is a strong factor in determining our behavior When do we conform? ● Social Impact Theory ○ Strength ■ how important the group is to you ■ more likely to conform to friends and family than random strangers ○ Immediacy ■ the more immediate groups to you ■ the groups that are close to us in terms of time and physical proximity are more influential than the groups that are not there at the time, we were part of in the past, or we hope to be a part of in the future ■ convenience ○ Number ■ minimum number of people that might have social influence on us ■ 3, 4, or 5 people is the most agreed on ■ if we meet the minimum number, additional people do not necessarily result in additional influence ■ after meeting the threshold, the effect slope plateaus ○ these can combine to alter the factors in each that affect social impact Results of Conformity ● Results of: Informational Social Influence ○ Private Acceptance ■ we privately accept that what we did because we saw others do it is the way it’s done ■ cognitive change: you didn’t know → know you know ● Results of: Normative Social Influence ○ Public compliance ■ you do something to publicly comply and fit it ■ what you think or feel doesn’t change, but you publicly comply ■ in privacy, you still think whatever you like and feel Compliance ● when we change our behavior in response to a request ● can be direct, indirect, or manipulative Compliance Techniques ((The more the request appeals to us, the more likely we are to comply)) ● Norm of reciprocity ○ if you want somebody to comply to a request that you have, you should do something for them first ○ we have a general social norm that you should reciprocate things ○ so if someone does this, the other side feels obliged to reciprocate ○ (benign, mutual) ○ strong norm ○ you might even do this for someone you don’t even like ○ related to karma ● Foot in the door ○ (onesided, manipulative) ○ when you get someone to agree to a small request, you gradually increase the size of the request to get what you want ○ Selfperception theory ■ we analyze our behavior, we look at our more likely characteristics and we apply them to complying with the request ○ Cognitive Dissonance ■ when there are inconsistencies we feel uncomfortable ■ explains a lot of stuff ■ justifies most of the things we do (why we do things/don’t do things) 14/10: ● Lowballing ○ twostep process ○ 1. get someone to agree (you can use other techniques to get the initial compliance) ○ 2. once they agree you reveal the true intentions/the true size of the request/the hidden costs ○ (manipulative) ○ norm of reciprocity ■ when we think about all the effort, time that went into persuasion and getting us to comply, we think that we are obliged to comply ○ Cognitive dissonance ■ Post decision dissonance ● after you have made the decision, you can no longer think rationally ● we need to make ourselves feel better by justifying our wrong decisions ● relates to confirmation bias ● mostly used when you can’t undo the decision ● Door in the face ○ start with a huge request then decrease it gradually to get to your intended goal in the first place ○ Technique in which a large, unreasonable request is made to set the stage for the real request ○ Reciprocal Concessions ■ reciprocating in compromises and negotiations between the person requesting and person being asked the request ● That’s not all! ○ A discount or bonus is offered ○ you feel like you’re getting a deal, but you’re really not ○ Dan Ariely ■ The cost of zero cost: ● when something is free/seems free, we have an irrational response to the ‘free’ ● you will spend more resources for something that’s free