Popular in Social Psych
Popular in Psychlogy
This 22 page Test Prep (MCAT, SAT...) was uploaded by Haley Genchur on Thursday October 8, 2015. The Test Prep (MCAT, SAT...) belongs to PSY 0105 at University of Pittsburgh taught by Amanda Forest in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 18 views. For similar materials see Social Psych in Psychlogy at University of Pittsburgh.
Reviews for Test Prep
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 10/08/15
Social Psych Test 2 Study Guide Ch 7 Persuasion Central Route Facts statistics people focus on arguments use when people are motivated to think carefully about the issue Most effective when we make strong arguments Weak arguments will backfire people will counter argue gtkBetter for long term persuasion for those with a high quotneed for cognitionquot Peripheral Route Heuristics people are in uenced by incidental cues use when people are not motivated or are distractedbusy Most effective when messages include cues that people use to make decisions without a lot of thought buy product from an attractive person Associating the product with cool and attractive peoplenot saying what the product actually does gtkInfluence is only temporary Yale Attitude Change Approach who says what to whom the source of communication the nature of the communication and the nature of the audience Elements of persuasion Credibility expertise trustworthiness attractivenessliking credibility believability a credible communicator is perceived as both expert and trustworthy sleeper effect a delayed impact of a message that occurs when an initially discounted message becomes effective such as we remember the message but forget the reason for discounting it a discredible speaker Constructing a Persuasive Appeal The Message Content 1 Make people feel good vs Make them scared 2 One sided vs T wo sided Appeal Effects of good feelings on persuasion Janis et al 1965 Create good feelings gt think positive creating a positive association gtkPeople were more persuaded by articles on issues when eating food Making people feel scared T he more fear the better The more vulnerable they feel the more they respond to persuasion eX smoking stop smoking ads pair info about what they can do solution with the fear for most effective persuasion Onesided Appeal Mention only pros best if audience already agrees with the message and will not find out the cons Twosided Appeal Address cons too best if audience already opposes the message or knows the cons or will find them out Effectiveness of onesided versus twosided appeals Hovland Lumsdaine amp Sheffield 1949 Soldiers who initially opposed war blue bar more persuaded by a two sided argument Cialdini39s persuasion principles Authority people defer to credible experts celebrity endorsements dentists uniforms Liking people respond more affirmatively to those we like similar to us attractiveeX compliments cooperation Consistency people tend to honor their public commitments don39t want to look inconsistentsign in front yarddo you value fitness yes buy shoes ConsensusSocial Proof people allow the example of others to validate how to think feel and act people like you wear this seeing people wearing trendsReciprocity Scarcity people prize what is scarcerare limited time only Black Friday sales primacy effect other things being equal information presented first usually has the most in uence gtkmessage 1 message 2 time message 1 accepted recency effect information presented last sometimes has the most influence less common than primacy effects gtkmessage l time message 2 message 2 accepted Reactance When people feel that their freedom to perform a certain behavior is threatened an unpleasant state of reactance is aroused which they can reduce by performing the threatened behavior Bathroom graffiti study Pennebaker amp Sanders 1976 quotPlease don39t write on the wallsquot vs restrictive quotDO NOT under any circumstances write on the wallsquot more restrictive sign created more reactance and therefore more graffiti as a result Attitude Inoculation EXposing people to weak attacks on their attitudes so that when stronger attacks come they will have refutations available think vaccination eX inoculating children against peer pressure to smoke Inoculating children against tobacco use McAlister et al1980 lO l2 yrs old negative attitudes toward smoking gt role playing analyzing advertisements 3 years later inoculated kids 3 times less likely to smoke Ch 8 Group In uence group 2 or more people who INTERACT with one another perceiving each other as quotusquot eX jogging partners fans at a game audience at a play NO gtkkey is collective influence entitativity the degree to which people are bonded together in a coherent unit common goals values family high in entitativity bus stop group low entitativity cohesiveness factors causing people to remain in a group liking status identity effort competition size coactors co participants working individually on a noncompetitive activity social facilitation original meaning the tendency of people to perform simple or well leamed tasks better when others are present current meaning gt ltthe strengthening of dominant likely responses in the presence of others gtkfacilitates the dominant response eX easy task do better difficult task do worse gtkeXpertise can make compleX tasks simpler good pool players do better among others bad pool players do worse among others Studies examining effects of presence of others on various types of performance Triplett 1898 Cyclists do better against each other vs racing alone against the clock children reel faster against other children gtkmere presence of others gtkeven animals ants chickens rats cats Studies examining effects of presence of others on various types of performance Allport 1920 Students refuting philosophical arguments in the presence of others vs alone quality of arguments are lower in the presence of others Studies examining effects of presence of others on various types of performance Zajonc 1965 Other39s presence gt arousal gt strengthens dominant response enhances easy behavior impairs difficult behavior evaluation apprehension concern for how others are evaluating us explains why people perform better when their partner is superior people who are evaluation sensitive are most affected by arousal distraction explains why the same effects are seen when ashing lights are present ashing lights have the same effect as evaluators watchingwe have a con ict between paying attention to others and paying attention to the task which overloads our cognitive system and leads to arousal mere presence explains why animals show the effect just the mere presence of others produces some arousal social loafing the tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually accountable no evaluation apprehension less effort how to stop it make individuals accountable Social loafing studies Ingham et al 1974 Rope pulling study IV alone or 1 2 or 3 people behind you DV how hard people pull gtkPeople pull much harder alone and give the least amount of effort when believing 3 people are behind them Social loafing studies Latane Williams amp Harkins 1979 Participants to make as much noise as possible wearing blindfold IV think you39re on your own vs with others DV level of noise you make gtkEach person made 13 the noise when they thought they were in a group gtkPeople perceived themselves as making equal noise alone and in a group Does Social Loa ng Always Occur in Groups No not when task is challenging appealing involving group members are friendswill interact again there39s a big reward for effort Deindividuation loss of self awareness and evaluation apprehension occurs in group situations that foster responsiveness to group norms good or bad and anonymity gtkWhen arousal social facilitation and diffused responsibility social loafing combine GX KKK dancing on tables food fight ISIS Trickortreating Halloween study Diener et al 1976 What factors elicit this state IV Group Size big groups are arousingwe feel unidentifiable IV Physical Anonymity uniforn costume gtkHalloween kids in group or alone or anonymous vs identified no questions vs whats your name and address kids in groups 2X as likely to take candy asked name took less candy Feeling Anonymous Increases Deindividuation people in a dark room cheat more gt quotstreet lights make the best policequot wearing sunglasses leads people to act more selfishly in a two player game also administer less shocks when wearing a nurses uniform than when normal being anonymous makes one less self conscious more group conscious and more responsive to cues present in the situation whether negative KKK or positive nurse How to Counteract Deindividuation increase self awareness mirrors large name tags bright lights individualized clothing Groupthink faulty thinking in highly cohesive groups suppressing dissent in the interest of harmony contrary info and divergent opinions are ignored decisions can39t be wrong members must agree Most at risk for Groupthink groups that are very cohesive groups that are homogeneous and isolated same background groups that have a directive charismatic leader How to Avoid Groupthink be impartial avoid starting with people stating opinions assign a quotdevil39s advocatequot and welcome dissent subdivide the group and reunite invite outside eXpert critiques address lingering doubts in a quotsecond chancequot meeting Group Polarization Group produced enhancement of members39 preexisting tendencies39 a strengthening of the members39 average tendency not a split within the group eX generous gt more generous favor gt favor more prejudice gt more prejudice against gt against more gtkDiscussion of a topic strengthens an opinion shared by all group members WHY Informational and Normative Influence social comparison evaluating one39s opinions and abilities by comparing oneself with others normative influence pluralistic ignorance a false impression of what most other people are thinking or feeling or how they are responding eX I advise Helen if success is 4 in 10 but others would require at least 5 or 6 in 10 eX want to go out with someone but each assumes the other is not interested Standing up to a Group People like whistle blowers outside of their situation Except when they were in our own situation and we didn39t do the right thing threatens our sense of self Rejection of moral rebels Monin Sawyer amp Marquez 2008 Study 1 IV 1 Write counter attitudinal speech or not and listen to a partner39s speech IV 2 Partner either complied or rebelled DV How much do you like the other Study 2 Replicated with a racist task Study 3 Showed that participants rejected rebel because they thought the other person would reject them Study 4 Didn39t reject other when people had done a self affirmation thinking of an important trait or value beforehand gtkT he reason insiders dislike moral rebels is because it threatens their positive sense of self Ch 9 Prejudice and Stereotyping prejudice a negative prejudgment of a group and its individual members gtkattitudeaffective response discrimination unfair treatment of members of a particular group based on their membership in that group gtkbehavior stereotype a belief about the personal attributes of a group can be positive or negative ex Asians are smart Blacks are athletic Blacks are dumb gtkbeliefs we hold rac1sm an individual39s prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people of a given raceorinstitutional practices that subordinate people of a given race even if not motivated by prejudice sexism benevolent vs hostile Benevolent sexism positive for the sexist attitudes toward women in traditional roles protective paternalism idealization of women and desire for intimate relations Hostile sexism negative equivalents on each dimension dominative paternalism derogatory beliefs and heterosexual hostility gtkBoth maintain gender roles oldfashioned racism ascribing negative traits and opposing equal rights modern racism denying discrimination opposing efforts promoting equality rejecting minorities for other reasons implicit prejudice negative associations toward a group that we don39t know we havedon39t share gtkpredicts behavior we don39t have conscious control over IAT prejudice computer tests pairing words with pictures and calculating response time 12th grade sociology predicts implicit prejudice Results may not be compatible with someone39s conscious values explicit prejudice something we39re aware that we have and are able to articulate our views gtkpredicts behaviors we have conscious control over Shooter bias study Correll et al 2002 computer game press one button to shoot different button to not shoot told to shoot only armed targets Show Gun faster to shoot blacks than whites made more not shoot errors toward whites holding guns No Gun faster to not shoot whites than blacks made more shoot errors on blacks holding normal objects gtkANYBODY may have knowledge of a stereotype just this knowledge can lead to implicit biases Sources of Prejudice Social Motivational Cognitive Social Sources of Prejudice unequal status slave vs master conformity accepting certain humor women in kitchen institutional schools govt mediaDick and Jane lotion social dominance orientation unequal status a motivation to have one39s group dominate other social groups authoritarian personaltiy disposed to favor obedience to authority and intolerance of outgroups and those lower in status Motivational Sources of Prejudice realistic group conflict theory frustrationaggression ingroup bias minimal group paradigm realistic group con ict theory the theory that prejudice arises from competition between groups for scarce resources Sherif et al39s 1961 Robbers Cave Study competition between two groups of boys led to hostility and conflict Ingroup bias tendency to favor one39s own group Social Identity Theory part of our self concept is in our groups EX need for self esteem gt personal identity gt personal achievements gt self esteem OR need for self esteem gt social identities gt group achievements OR favoritism toward in group and derogation of out groups gt self esteem gtkWhen self esteem is threatened we are most likely to favor ingroup ingroup quotUsquot a group of people who share a sense of belonging a feeling of common identity outgroup quotThemquot a group that people perceive as distinctively different from or apart from their ingroup terror management people39s self protective emotional and cognitive responses including adhering more strongly to their cultural world views and prejudices when confronted with reminders of their mortality derogate those who further arouse their anXiety by challenging their worldviews Protection from negativity social identity and selfesteem Sinclair amp Kunda 1999 Interpersonal skills test IV 1 feedback from black or white doctor IV 2 positive praise or negative criticism feedback Praise activate doctor stereotype suppress black stereotype slow response time to categorizing as black Criticism activate black stereotype categorize more quickly as black Protection from negativity social identity and selfesteem Fein amp Spencer 1997 JAP stereotype Positive feedback same rating for Italian and Jewish Negative feedback evaluated Jewish more negatively than Italian motivated to derogate members of an outgroup higher self esteem gtkPrejudice maintainsboosts self esteem minimal groups people placed into groups based on their responses to evaluating abstract art estimating dots flipping a coin Minimal group paradigm studies Tajfel 1971 People placed arbitrarily into a group told they were an quotoverestimatorquot or quotunderstimatorquot awarded people in their group more money gtkPeople favor their ingroup Cognitive Sources of Prejudice group categorization illusory correlation group serving bias just world phenomenon Group categorization A and B lines Tajfel amp Wilkes 1963 When shown with letters people overestimate by 100 how much taller or shorter A and B lines are people perceive bigger distance between A B vs AA even though they39re the same social categorization the classification of persons into groups on the basis of common attributes helps us form impressions quickly and use past experiences to guide new interactions Drawbacks by categorizing people we overestimate the differences between groups underestimate the differences between groups outgroup homogeneity effect outgroup homogeneity effect perception of outgroup members as more similar to one another than are ingroup members ex quotthey are alike we are diversequot Often do not notice subtle differences among outgroups because have little personal contact with them Often do not encounter a representative sample of outgroup members ownrace bias the tendency for people to more accurately recognize faces of their own race stigma consciousness a peson39s expectation of being victimized by prejudice ordiscrimination groupserving bias explaining away outgroup members39 positive behaviors also attributing negative behaviors to their dispositions while excusing such behavior by one39s own group justworld phenomenon the tendency of people to believe that the world is just and that people therefore get what they deserve and deserve what they get Illusory Correlations demonstration w traits of Group A vs Group B T he tendency for people to overestimate the link between variables that are only slightly or not at all correlated T end to overestimate the association between variables when The variables are distinctive The variables are already expected to go together T he joint occurrence of two distinctive events minority member Group B amp distinctive event negative behavior probably attracted more attention and caused faulty impressions Confirmation Bias quotWhite men can39t jumpquot Stone et al 1997 Subjects listened to same basketball game IV subjects led to believe player was black or white DV how athletic was the player black Court smart white Believed to be black very athletic low court smarts Believed to be white not athletic high court smarts Hannah study Darley amp Gross 1983 poor vs rich environment girl39s performance on test is ambiguous shown in poor environment rated below grade level shown in rich environment rated above grade level when observers did not see video of intelligence test rated both poor and rich the same Blue eyes brown eyes demonstration trying to reduce racism authority imposes value gt people value and impose value gtkpower Consequences of implicit vs explicit prejudice Dovidio Kawakami amp Gaertner 2002 Measured self reported eXplicit and automatic implicit prejudice White participants interacted with one Black and one White confederate Interactions rated by participants confederates and observers gtkexplicit prejudice gt self perceptions predicts verbal behavior gtkimplicit prejudice gt confederate39s perceptions predicts nonverbal behavior gtkdifferent types gtdifferent behavioral manifestations subtyping accommodating individuals who deviate from one39s stereotype by thinking of them as quotexceptions to the rulequot friendlykind police officers gtkexceptions to the group subgrouping accommodating individuals who deviate from one39s stereotype by forming a new stereotype about this subset of the group eX professional middle class blacks gtka part of the overall group Prejudice and selffulfilling prophecies Word Zanna amp Cooper 1974 White interviewers rated Black applicants worse than White applicants The Black applicants actually performed worse But interviewers Sat further away from Black applicants Had shorter interviews with Black applicants Made more speech errors with Black applicants gtkT rained White interviewers in different styles gtkParticipants White applicants gtkIV Treated like Black or White candidate gtkwhites treated like blacks performed worse stereotype threat a disruptive concern when facing a negative stereotype that one will be evaluated based on a negative stereotypehas immediate effects How can it hamper achievement T he reactions to the threat can directly interfere with performance T he threat can cause individuals to dismiss the domain as no longer relevant to their self esteem and identity stereotype threat cont Can affect any group for which strong well known negative stereotypes are relevant in particular settings One does not need to believe in a negative stereotype for it to have an effect Elderly stereotype and memory performance Women in STEM Men in test of emotional intelligence Stereotype threat studies Steele amp Aronson 1995 African American amp European American Stanford Students Make racial stereotype of intelligence salient Framed test as Diagnostic of ability Nondiagnostic control Examine test performance gtknondiagnostic equal performance gtkdiagnostic blacks do worse than whites Stereotype threat studies Fredrickson et al 1998 The Swimsuit Becomes You body objectification try on sweater vs swimsuit among women performed better with sweater than swimsuit attention drawn to bodyfemininity gt stereotype Stereotype threat and multiple identities Shih Pittinsky amp Ambady 1999 Asian women good at math asian amp not good at math woman IV Remind of Asian identity or Female identity or Neither identity control group DV Math test Results Reminded of Asian did best Control next Female last the contact hypothesis contact between majority and minority group members will reduce prejudice inaccurate stereotypes will be disproved gtkAllport only true when contact occurs between those of equal status in pursuit of common goals Robber39s Cave Study 2 groups of boys hostility because of competitive activities at summer camp tried contact to reduce hostility watching movies together eating in same dining room backfired created quotemergenciesquot to work together initally went back to fighting after completing task gradual decline in hostility and eventual friendship gtkCooperative contact did not immediately reduce hostility despite no history of animosity prior to study essentially similar group members gtkCan this work with groups of long time prejudice Yes Evidence that Contact Works Field studies less prejudice in desegregated public housing having more outgroup friends 2 less prejudice Meta analysis Pettigrew 1998 contact is effective 203 studies Factors that make it work between group friendships are particularly important endorsement of integration by authorities no inter group competition active cooperation shared goals equal status among students When contact can fail Interpretation of ambiguous behaviour biased by stereotype Even contact with individuals who clearly disconfirm the stereotype may not generalize to the whole group Stereotype Threat Reduction What do you think might reduce it Deemphasizing the stereotyped identity Reframing the task e g non diagnostic Self affirmation belongingness affirmation Ch 10 Aggression aggression physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt someone eX insulting someone hitting others in a rage in sports hostile aggression aggression that springs from anger its goal is to injure eX domestic violence mob rioting instrumental aggression aggression that aims to injure but only as a means to some other end eX mugging war indirect aggression in ict harm without conflict with the person eX Gossip direct aggression behavior aimed toward the person physical hitting pushing kicking verbal insulting cursing threatening Examples Hostile Direct Angry driver yells obscenities at tailgater Hostile Indirect Upset tenant disparages landlord to neighbors Instrumental Direct Bank robber shoots guard Instrumental Indirect Someone starts rumor to break up relationship Sources of Aggression Instinctive Biological Environmental instinctive behavior an innate unleamed behavior pattern eXhibited by all members of a species Aggressive Instinct Aggression is instinctive Organisms who successfully aggress gain resources Necessary for reproduction Evidence Less likely to aggress against kin Prevalence of aggression among animals suggests that it has some survival value Biological Theories Hormones contribute to Aggression Testosterone positively correlated with aggression bi directional Elevated levels seen in people convicted of violent crimes seX differences in aggression men more aggressiveconvicted of violent crimes Environmental Factors Aggression increases due to physical pain or discomfort During hotter times gtkIncreases in domestic violence gtkIncreases in criminal assaults gtkBatters are being hit more by pitched baseballs frustration the blocking of goal directed behavior frustrationaggression theory frustration triggers readiness to aggress When does frustration lead to aggression Burnstein amp Worchel 1962 Confederate disrupted group39s problem solving IV The reason for the interruption Uncontrollable reason his hearing aid malfunctioned gtIrritated with confederate Controllable reason he wasn39t paying attention gtHostile towards confederate gtkFrustration leads to aggression when frustration is the result of a controllable reason Frustration and aggressive cues Berkowitz amp Le Page 1967 Does mere exposure to aggressive objects increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior Confederate gave participants shocks IV Left participants in room with Shotgun and revolver B adminton rackets Participants administered quotshocksquot to confederate gtkLonger duration of shocks with gun in the room gtkunjustified frustration gtangeraggression cues gtaggression displacement the redirection of aggression to a target other than the source of the frustration generally the new target is a safer or more socially acceptable target relative deprivation the perception that one is less well off than others with whom one compares oneself eXplains why happiness tends to be lower and crime rates higher in communitiesnations with large income inequality middle class more economically frustrated than impoverished residents of African shantytowns who know no other life social learning theory we learn social behavior by observing and imitating and by being rewarded and punished By watching aggressive models people gtkLearn specific aggressive behaviors gtkDevelop more positive attitudes and beliefs about aggression gtkConstruct aggressive quotscriptsquot See the world as an aggressive place Interpret unintentional behaviors as intentional Bandura39s Bobo doll study Children watched adult play with toys IV ADULT 39S BEHAVIOR DV Children39s behavior toward Bobo Doll Children who had seen the adult behave violently toward Bobo Doll modeled the behavior Performed similar actions amp said same things Engaged in novel forms of aggression How Does Media Violence Affect Behavior Weakens inhibitions against violent behavior Desensitizes individuals to violence Illustrates how to perform specific violent actsChanges people39s social scripts Perception of the world as a dangerous place Video games and aggression Anderson amp Dill 2001 Students who reported playing more violent video games in grade school engaged in more aggressive behavior Study IV Participants played either violent Wolfenstein 3D or non violent video game Myst DV Duration of noise blast given to punish an opponent Results participants playing violent game gave longer blasts Effects of Violent Video Games Short term effects gtkPriming aggressive thoughts gtkDesensitization to others39 suffering Long term effects gtkLearn aggression related scripts that become more accessible when real life con ict arises catharsis emotional release view of aggression is that the aggressive drive is reduced when one quotreleasesquot aggressive energy either by acting aggressively or by fantasizing aggression gtkDOES NOT WORK Reducing Aggression Social learning gt ltReward co operative non aggressive behavior gtkT each how to deal with frustration and resolve conflict gtkEncourage reduction of TV viewing Consume Prosocial Media music TV etc