Unit 13 Social Psychology

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Unit 13 Social Psychology by Mind Map: Unit 13 Social Psychology

1. Social Influence

1.1. Automatic mimicry

1.2. Conformity and Social Norms

1.3. Solomon Asch (1955) study showed people showing discomfort when others around them gave the wrong answer when answering the question of which line was the same as the standard line

1.4. Asch’s study showed 75% of participants conformed at least once and 25% never conformed

1.5. Limitations: only males in same age group, judging line length doesn’t really affect anyone or hurt anyone and so easier to conform

1.6. Normative social influence: influence resulting from a person’s desire to gain approval or avoid disapproval

1.7. Informational social influence: influence resulting from one’s willingness to accept others’ opinions about reality

1.8. Conformity across cultures differs

1.9. Conformity and Social Norms

1.10. Lessons from the conformity and obedience studies

1.11. Social Facilitation: stronger responses on simple or well learned tasks in the presence of others

1.12. Social Loafing: tendency for people in a group to exert less effort when pooling their efforts toward attaining a common goal than when individually accountable

1.13. 3 causes of social loafing

1.14. Deindividuation: loss of self-awareness and self restraint occurring in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity

1.15. Group Polarization: enhancement of a group’s prevailing inclinations through discussion within the group

1.16. Groupthink: mode of thinking that occurs when the desire for harmony in a decision making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives

1.17. The Power of Individuals

1.18. We are natural mimics, unconsciously imitating others’ expressions, postures, and voice tones

1.19. Automatic mimicry helps us to empathize with others

1.20. Mood linkage: sharing up and down moods with others

1.21. Suggestibility and mimicry can lead to tragedy

1.22. Conformity: adjusting our behavior or thinking to coincide with a group standard

1.23. We have the desire to belong and sensitive to social norms

1.24. Groups could provide information

1.25. Western cultures that stress individualism have lower conformity rates in studies as compared to Asian, African, and Latin American cultures which stress group standards

1.26. Stanley Milgram (1963, 1974) studied how obedient people were to demands

1.27. Foot in the door effect: participants from Milgram’s study and history shows people doing small things first before reaching the 450 volts (in Milgram’s study) or carting the Jews into gas chambers

1.28. People tend to gradually succumb to evil

1.29. Great evils grow out of people’s willingness to smaller evils

1.30. Ordinary people can become corrupted by an evil situation, or following evil orders, etc

1.31. What you do well, you do well, if not better, in front of others

1.32. Energizing effect when people see others aroused

1.33. What you do poorly, you do poor, if not poorer, in front of others

1.34. People acting as part of a group feel less accountable, and worry less about what others think

1.35. Group members may view their individual contributions as dispensable

1.36. People will slack off in groups and free-ride on others’ efforts

1.37. People have harsher things to say or act when they are anonymous

1.38. Beliefs and attitudes we bring to a group grow stronger through more discussions within that group

1.39. Internet can be both good and bad

1.40. Failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, escalation of Vietnam War, failed anticipation of Pearl Harbor attack, etc. were part of groupthink

1.41. Consistent and persistent minority voice can sometimes sway the majority

1.42. People may privately develop sympathy for the minority position and rethink their views

1.43. Highly publicized suicides or mass shootings lead to an increase in threats or in actions similar to what occurred

1.44. Suggestibility and mimicry are examples of conformity

1.45. Studies have shown we are more likely to conform when

1.46. Participants were told by experimenters to deliver electric shock to the learner

1.47. Despite the learner acting out pain and screams, 65% of participants continued to give the maximum shock

1.48. Obedience was highest when orders were given by a perceived legitimate authority figure; authority figure was supported by a prestigious institution; victim was in another room; there were no people defying orders

1.49. 500 German soldiers were ordered to shoot Jews (women, children, elderly) in the back of the head on July 13, 1942. When given the option by their commander, only about a dozen refused to participate and another 20% dissented during the shooting

1.50. French village of Le Chambon, even when given orders by the police to hand over the list of French Jews, the pastor refused, and the villagers followed and refused as well

1.51. Isolation of internet blogs and websites can lead to group polarization in racist ideals, terrorism, etc. while on the other hand it can also help to promote positive support groups such as cancer support groups, etc

1.52. People suppressed or self censored their dissenting views to preserve the “good feeling” in the group

1.53. Made to feel incompetent/insecure; are in a group of at least 3 people, in a group in which everyone else agrees; admire the group’s status; have not made a prior commitment to any response; know that others in the group will observe our behavior’ are from a culture that strongly encourages respect for social standards

2. Antisocial Relations

2.1. Prejudice: unjustifiable and usually negative attitude toward a group and its members. Generally involves stereotyped beliefs, negative feelings, and a predisposition to discriminatory action

2.2. Stereotype: generalized belief about a group of people

2.3. Discrimination: unjustifiable negative behavior toward a group and its members

2.4. Prejudice in America has declined in America

2.5. Although there has been a decline in overt prejudice, subtle prejudice still exists

2.6. Over prejudice exists

2.6.1. Mistreatment of Muslims, especially after the 9/11 attacks

2.7. More people today are accepting of interracial relations

2.8. More people today think people should receive the same pay for the same job

2.9. People are uncomfortable in relationships with people in another race

2.10. Worldwide, women are more likely to be illiterate, living in poverty

2.11. Studies have shown most people feel more positively about women than they do about men

2.12. People prefer feministic traits such as sensitivity, less aggressiveness, etc.

2.13. mplicit Racial Associations: people who deny harboring racial prejudice may carry negative associations

2.13.1. Studies showed that people took longer to identify pleasant words such as “good” with Black sounding names rather than White sounding names

2.14. Unconscious Patronization: White university women evaluated a flawed essay written by Black students and gave it higher ratings than one that was supposedly written by White students

2.15. Race-Influenced Perceptions: Unarmed Amadou Diallo was died from 19 out of 41 gunshots from police in his apartment doorway. He was pulling out his wallet and not a weapon.

2.16. Reflexive Bodily Responses: Facial muscle responses and activation in amygdala shows prejudice in studies even in people who consciously express little prejudice

2.17. Social Inequalities

2.18. Just-world phenomenon: tendency for people to believe the world is just and that people therefore get what they deserve and deserve what they get

2.18.1. Good is rewarded and evil is punished

2.18.2. Enables the rich to think their wealth is deserved and the poor man’s misfortune is also deserved because they were too “lazy” or didn’t “work hard enough”, etc., ignoring the complexities of the socio-economic and cultural dynamic that may have played a part

2.19. Social Inequalities

2.20. Us and Them: Ingroup and Outgroup

2.21. Ingroup: “us” - people with whom we share a common identity

2.21.1. Through our social identities we associate ourselves with a certain group and contrast ourselves with others

2.21.2. Evolution had us thinking in “us” and “them” mentality and to be cautious of those that don’t look or sound like us

2.22. Outgroup: “them” - those perceived as different or apart from our ingroup

2.23. Ingroup bias: tendency to favor our own group

2.23.1. Cliques are formed in high schools, school children believe

2.24. Emotional Roots of Prejudice

2.25. Scapegoat theory: prejudice offers an outlet for anger by providing someone to blame

2.25.1. Following 9/11, people lashed out at innocent Muslims

2.25.2. Negative emotions nourish prejudice and people cling tighter to their “ingroups”

2.26. Cognitive Roots of Prejudice

2.26.1. Stereotyped beliefs are a byproduct of how we cognitively simplify the world Form categories

2.27. Biology of Aggression

2.28. Aggression: any physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt or destroy, done out of hostility or a calculated means to an end

2.28.1. Emerges from an interaction of biology and experience For a gun to fire, the trigger must be pulled by a perso Both biological and psychological causes for aggression

2.29. Biology of Aggression

2.30. Genetic influences

2.30.1. Genetics influence aggression

2.30.2. Animals are and can be bred for aggression

2.30.3. Identical twins have a higher rate of both being aggressive vs fraternal twins

2.30.4. Y chromosome may have higher rates of carrying a genetic marker influencing aggression

2.31. Neural influences

2.32. Studies have shown when provoked, areas such as the frontal lobe and amygdala either inhibit or facilitate aggressive behavior

2.33. Biochemical influences

2.33.1. Higher testosterone levels and alcohol consumption also tend to facilitate aggressive behavior

2.34. Psychological and Sociocultural Factors in Aggression

2.35. Aversive Events

2.35.1. Suffering and being made miserable often makes others miserable

2.35.2. Frustration-aggression principle: frustration-the blocking of an attempt to achieve a goal-creates anger, which can generate aggression

2.36. Psychological and Sociocultural Factors in Aggression

2.37. Reinforcement and Modeling

2.37.1. We learn when our behaviors are reinforced and we learn by watching others

2.37.2. Aggression-replacement program: Juvenile offenders, gang members, and parents learned anger management techniques and peaceful ways to resolve disputes

2.37.3. Studies show higher aggression rates in: Countries with higher disparity between rich and poor Father absent homes

2.38. Psychological and Sociocultural Factors in Aggression

2.39. Media Models for Violence

2.39.1. TV, films, video games, music lyrics display violence and sexual aggression

2.39.2. Social script: culturally modeled guide for how to act in various situations

2.40. Psychological and Sociocultural Factors in Aggression

2.41. Violent Video Games

2.41.1. Studies and criminal cases have shown that those who play violent video games are more aggressive

2.42. Many factors contribute to aggressive behavior and there are many ways of changing it

2.43. There are still many non-aggressive people in the world doing good things

3. Social Thinking

3.1. Social Psychology: scientific study of how we think about, influence, and relate to one another

3.1.1. Focus on the situation

3.1.2. Study the social influences that explain why the same person will act differently in different situations

3.1.3. Personality psychologists study personal traits of people and explain why different people act differently in a given situation

3.2. Attribution Theory: Fritz Heider’s theory that we explain someone’s behavior by crediting either the situation or the person’s disposition

3.3. Fundamental Attribution Error: tendency for observers, when analyzing another’s behavior, to underestimate the impact of the situation and to overestimate the impact of personal disposition

3.4. Napolitan & Goethals (1979) conducted a study at Williams College

3.4.1. Told ½ the participants the person they would be speaking to would be acting a certain way yet they attributed her behavior to her personal disposition even though the ½ the participants were told she would be acting

3.5. More common in individualistic western cultures

3.6. Attitudes affect actions

3.6.1. Knowing public attitudes affect public policies, activists aim to persuade

3.6.2. Peripheral route persuasion: occurs when people are influenced by incidental cues

3.6.3. Central route persuasion: occurs when people focus on the arguments and respond with favorable thoughts

3.6.4. Situations - strong social pressure could influence attitude

3.7. Actions affect attitudes

3.7.1. People believe more strongly in what they stood up for

3.7.2. Attitudes follow behavior

3.7.3. Foot in the door phenomenon: tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request To get people to agree to something big, start with something small and build People go against their attitudes and moral beliefs Works for good and for bad

3.8. Actions affect attitudes

3.8.1. 21 US Prisoners of War during the Korean War held by Chinese communists decided to stay with the communists Some who returned home believed communism was a good thing for Asia

3.8.2. Studies showed people called names or provided electric shocks to people. They eventually believed the people they were berating were indeed bad people

3.8.3. Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not accepted easily but people began to think more alike as laws were enforced and people’s attitudes slowly shifted

3.9. Role playing affects attitudes

3.9.1. Role: set of expectations about a social position, defining how those in the position ought to behave

3.10. Relief from tension

3.10.1. When we become aware that our attitudes and actions don’t coincide, we experience tension

3.10.2. Cognitive dissonance theory: theory that we act to reduce the discomfort we feel when 2 of our thoughts are inconsistent When we become aware that our attitudes and our actions clash, we can reduce the resulting dissonance by changing our attitudes The more dissonance you feel, the more motivated you are to find consistency, such as changing your attitude to help justify the act

3.11. Cognitive dissonance

3.11.1. We cannot directly control all of our feelings but we influence them by altering our behavior

3.11.2. If you feel sad, you can talk more positive and self accepting ways to feel better

3.11.3. Volunteerism helps promote compassion

3.11.4. Changing our behavior can change how we think about others and how we feel about ourselves

4. Prosocial Relations

4.1. Why do we befriend or fall in love with some people but not with others

4.2. Proximity: geographic nearness is a powerful indicator

4.2.1. Mere exposure effect: repeated exposure to a novel stimuli increases our liking for them

4.2.2. Familiarity breeds fondness

4.2.3. Studies have shown people selected the “attractive” ones as ones they were exposed to or those that resembled themselves

4.3. Online matchmaking and speed dating

4.3.1. Without including online predators or those who falsify their online identity, friendships and relationships tend to last longer when matched online

4.3.2. People disclosed more in shorter periods of time

4.3.3. Speed dating studies showed that an average of 4 minutes spent on a person was enough time to form feelings

4.4. Physical Attractiveness

4.4.1. Studies have shown that people are first attracted to physical appearance and physical appearances factor into relationships

4.4.2. Attractive” people tend to be more confident, healthier looking, happier, etc.

4.4.3. Studies have shown that “average is attractive” and youthful forms seem to be considered attractive worldwide

4.4.4. Our feelings also influence our judgement on attractiveness

4.5. Similarity

4.5.1. Sharing common attitudes, beliefs, interests seem to also play a part in how long a relationship will last

4.5.2. Reward theory of attraction: we will like those whose behavior is rewarding to us and we will continue relationships that offer more rewards than costs

4.6. Passionate Love: aroused state of intense positive absorption in another, usually present at the beginning of a love relationship

4.6.1. Two factor theory of emotion: emotions have two ingredients (physical arousal + cognitive appraisal) & arousal from any source can enhance one emotion or another, depending on how we interpret and label the arousal

4.6.2. Adrenaline makes the heart grow fonder

4.7. Companionate Love: deep affectionate attachment we feel for those with whom our lives are intertwined

4.7.1. As love matures, it becomes steadier v

4.7.2. Equity: people receive from a relationship in proportion to what they give to it

4.7.3. Self disclosure: revealing intimate aspects of oneself to others

4.7.4. Self disclosing intimacy + mutually supportive equity = enduring companionate love

4.8. Altruism: unselfish regard for the welfare of others

4.8.1. Hotel Rwanda” movie based off of the Rwandan genocide featured a man who saved 1,200 lives by cashing in favors, calling influential people he knew, etc

4.8.2. Oskar Schindler saved the lives of Jews

4.9. Bystander Intervention

4.9.1. Bystander effect: tendency for any given bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present

4.9.2. 1964, Kitty Genovese, was raped and stabbed, then stabbed and raped again after her killer returned despite people hearing her screams at 3:30 AM in New York, first call to 911 wasn’t made until 3:50 AM

4.9.3. People tend to help only if the situation enables us to notice the incident, interpret it as an emergency, and for us to assume responsibility for helping

4.9.4. Presence of others deters people from helping

4.10. Social exchange theory: our social behavior is an exchange process, the aim of which is to maximize benefits and minimize costs

4.11. Reciprocity norm: expectation that people will help, not hurt, those who have helped them

4.12. Social-responsibility norm: expectation that people will help those dependent upon them

4.13. Conflict: perceived incompatibility of actions, goals or ideas

4.13.1. Creates destructive processes (social traps and distorted perceptions) that can produce results no one wants

4.14. Social Traps: situation in which the conflicting parties, by each rationally pursuing their self-interest, become caught in mutually destructive behavior

4.14.1. No one wins in situations when people only pursue their self interest (elephant tusk poachers who kill elephants - I’m only killing a few, buying a hummer versus an electric car - I’m just one person buying a hummer)

4.15. Enemy Perceptions

4.15.1. Mirror-image perceptions: mutual views often held by conflicting people, as when each side sees itself as ethical and peaceful and views the other side as evil and aggressive

4.16. Promoting Peace

4.16.1. Contact - putting 2 conflicting parties in closer contact may promote peace when they accept one another

4.16.2. Cooperation - putting 2 conflicting parties to work towards a common goal helped to overcome conflict

4.16.3. Communication - 3rd party mediator or effective communication may help to overcome conflict

4.16.4. Conciliation - One side initiates a small conciliatory act, hoping the other side will follow, then repeat with more small acts, eventually decreasing conflict and tension

4.17. Our world today

4.17.1. We can each affirm our own culture’s heritage while building bridges of communication, understanding, and cooperation across our cultural traditions

4.17.2. We are more alike than we are different

4.17.3. Civilization advances not by conflict and cultural isolation, but by tapping knowledge, the skills, and arts that each culture has