1. Festinger & Carlsmith Cognitive consequences of forced compliance (1959)
1.1. Aim
1.1.1. To investigate if making people perform a dull task would create a greater degree of cognitive dissonance through forced compliance behaviour
1.2. Method
1.2.1. Research design
1.2.1.1. Experimental research
1.2.2. Sample
1.2.2.1. 71 male students
1.2.3. IV
1.2.3.1. Money paid to lie (behaviour)
1.2.4. DV
1.2.4.1. Change in cognition/ degree of dissonance
1.2.5. Procedure
1.2.5.1. Participants were paid $1 or $20 to complete a boring task (turning pegs on a peg board for an hour) and tell another subject (a confederate) that it was exciting
1.2.6. Data collection tool
1.2.6.1. Participants were asked to rate how much they liked the boring task on a scale of -5 through to +5
1.2.7. Type of data
1.2.7.1. Quantitative Subjective
1.3. Findings
1.3.1. When asked to evaluate the task participants who were only paid $1 rated the tedious task as more enjoyable than the participants paid $20
1.3.2. The $1 reward was not enough incentive to lie so the only way to justify it was changing their cognition that is was interesting, therefore rating the task higher
1.4. Conclusion
1.4.1. Being paid $1 is not sufficient incentive for lying so those who were paid $1 experienced dissonance, the incompatible cognition was man those tasks were boring and behaviour i lied to a fellow student for next to nothing
1.4.2. Subjects were forced to perform lying behaviour but were able to remove the cognitive dissonance by changing the cognition and deluding themsleves that the task was fun
2. A long lasting evaluation a person makes about an object, person, group, event or issue.
2.1. Type
2.1.1. Implicit
2.1.1.1. Attitudes that are at the unconcious level, are involuntarily formed and are typically unknown to the individual.
2.1.1.1.1. Likely to be resistant to change
2.1.2. Explicit
2.1.2.1. Evaluations that are at the concious level, are deliberately formed and are easy to self report.
2.1.2.1.1. More dynamic and change overtime
2.2. Characteristics
2.2.1. Persist over time and are relatively stable
2.2.2. Have a direction (positive, negative, neutral)
2.2.3. Vary in intensity (feel strongly about an issue or take a mild interest)
2.3. Formation
2.3.1. Direct personal experience
2.3.2. Observation/interaction with others
2.3.3. Conditioning (punishment and reward)
2.3.4. Social norms (cultural values and beliefs, media)
2.4. Function
2.4.1. Guide us in a way to help satisfy our needs and wants
2.4.2. Help us to understand and process information in a meaningful way
2.4.3. Value expression of an individuals central values and beliefs
2.4.4. Self image protection from harm, shame or threat
3. Discrimination
3.1. Behaviour (positive or negative) that is directed towards a social group and its members.
3.1.1. Direct
3.1.1.1. Occurs when somebody is treated unfavourably because of a protected attribute.
3.1.2. Indirect
3.1.2.1. Occurs when all individuals are treated the same but certain individuals are put to a disadvantage because of this.
4. Attribution Theory
4.1. Process of assigning a caus to our own behaviour and the behaviour of others.
4.1.1. Dispositional attribution
4.1.1.1. Behaviour is attributed to an internal characterisitc of the person.
4.1.2. Situational attribution
4.1.2.1. Behaviour of an individual is attributed to a external cause.
4.1.3. Attibutions about others
4.1.3.1. Fundamental attribution error
4.1.3.1.1. The tendency to overestimate personal factors (dispositional attribution) and underestimate the impact of situational influences to account for the behaviour of others
4.1.4. Attributions about self
4.1.4.1. Self serving bias
4.1.4.1.1. The tendency to make situational attributions the major cause of an individuals own negative behaviours and dispositional attributions to account for positive behaviours
4.1.4.1.2. Taking personal credit for own success
4.1.4.1.3. Avoiding responsibility for faliure and assigning external factors as causative agents
5. Sherif Robbers cave experiment (1961)
5.1. Aim
5.1.1. To find out what factors make two groups develop hostile relationships and then to see how this hostility can be reduced
5.2. Method
5.2.1. Type of research
5.2.1.1. Field experiment
5.2.2. Sample
5.2.2.1. 22 boys, 12 years old, unknown to each other, from white protestant, two parent, middle class backgrounds
5.2.3. IV
5.2.3.1. Stage of the experiment (in group formation, friction phase or integration phase)
5.2.4. DV
5.2.4.1. Intergroup behaviour
5.2.5. Procedure
5.2.5.1. Phase 1 Group formation
5.2.5.1.1. Intragroup cooperation and group culture formation
5.2.5.2. Phase 2 Intergroup conflict
5.2.5.2.1. Intergroup competition and bias perceptions
5.2.5.3. Phase 3 Intergroup cooperation
5.2.5.3.1. Superordinate goals and harmonious attitudes
5.3. Findings
5.3.1. Showed superordinate goals reduce conflict signifigantly
5.4. Conclusion
5.4.1. Groups form quickly establishing group identities and norms
5.4.2. In competitive situations in group solidarity increases as does out group hostility
5.4.3. Mere presence by itself does not reduce out group hostility
5.4.4. Friction is reduced when two groups are forced to cooperate, negotiate and share
5.5. Contributions
5.5.1. Provides evidence that when people compete for scarce resources there is a rise in hostility between groups
5.5.2. Provides empirical evidence for the contact hypothesis for reduction of prejudice
5.6. Limitations
5.6.1. Validity
5.6.1.1. Unrealistic, two groups of boys were artificially created as was the competition and does not necessarily reflect real life
5.6.1.2. No control group from which to draw comparative data
5.6.1.3. Extraneous variables, the observers and experimenters had a big impact on the behaviour of the participants
5.6.2. Ethical considerations
5.6.2.1. Participants were deceived as they did not know the true aim of the study and many events (failed water supply) were deception
5.6.2.2. Parents were aware the camp was some sort of psychological research and gave presumptive consent on their son's behalf, lack of detail given to parents invalidated consent
5.6.2.3. Participants were not debriefed afterwards as they never realised they were being experimented on
5.6.2.4. Participants were not protected from physical or psychological harm
5.6.3. Generalizability
5.6.3.1. Results could not be generalized to the population (people) as they only used 12 year old, white middle class boys and excluded females and adults, the sample was biased
5.6.3.2. Observers were only with the boys for 12 hours a day and could not see or overhear everything that went on
5.6.4. Reliability
5.6.4.1. The classic robbers cave study was the 3rd replication of the test, the previous two studies dod not produce results consistent with the robbers cave outcomes
6. Tripartite model
6.1. A three element model on how attitudes are formed throughout life. All three elements must be present for an attitude to exist but are not always consistent.
6.1.1. Affective
6.1.1.1. Feelings
6.1.2. Behavioural
6.1.2.1. Actions
6.1.3. Cognitive
6.1.3.1. Beliefs
7. Festinger Theory of cognitive dissonance
7.1. Cognitive dissonance
7.1.1. State of psychological discomfort arising from awareness of inconsistency amoungst beliefs and actions.
7.1.1.1. Response to cognitive dissonance
7.1.1.1.1. Change beliefs
7.1.1.1.2. Change behaviour
7.1.1.1.3. Change perception of the action
7.1.1.2. Process
7.1.1.2.1. Become aware of the cognitive dissonance
7.1.1.2.2. Take responsibility for the dissonance
7.1.1.2.3. Feel discomfort from the dissonance
7.1.1.2.4. Work to resolve the dissonance
7.1.1.3. Effect of cognitive dissonance on behaviour
7.1.1.3.1. Avoidance
7.1.1.3.2. Reduction
7.1.1.3.3. Rationalisation
7.1.1.4. Increasing the magnitude of dissonance
7.1.1.4.1. As the number of discrepant cognitions increases so does the dissonance
7.1.1.4.2. The more free choice one has in deciding the more dissonance as cant say 'i had no choice'
7.1.1.4.3. The greater the effort or sacrifice involved to hold a belief the greater the dissonance
7.2. Strengths
7.2.1. Theory revolutionized social psychology by emphasizing the role of cognition in social behaviour
7.3. Limitations
7.3.1. Cognitive dissonance cannot be directly observed, measured or quantify the exact amount
7.3.2. Does not fully explain how people decide which of the strategies they will use to reduce the dissonance
7.3.3. Fails to address the issue of individual differences in the arousal and tolerance for cognitive dissonance
7.4. Real life application of theory
7.4.1. Explains post purchase consumer behaviour (buyers regret)
7.4.2. Dissonance processes partially accounts for the effectiveness of psychotherapy
8. Tajfel & Turner Social identity theory (1979)
8.1. Social categorisation
8.1.1. Being grouped by self or others (black, white, christian, muslim, student).
8.1.1.1. In group
8.1.1.1.1. Groups to which an individual perceived membership to "us".
8.1.1.2. Out group
8.1.1.2.1. Any group other than the groups to which an individual perceives themselves as belonging to "them".
8.2. Social identification
8.2.1. Adoption of group norms
8.2.1.1. Rules an expectations of behaviours by group members.
8.2.2. Self image
8.2.2.1. Our definition of ourselves, becomes linked to group membership.
8.2.3. Social identity
8.2.3.1. Person's sense of who they are based on their real of perceived grou membership/s.
8.3. Social comparison
8.3.1. Once categorized as part of a group and identified with that group there is a tendency to compare the group with others
8.3.1.1. To maintain self esteem the group must compare favourably with other groups
8.3.1.1.1. The more prestigious the group the higher the self esteem of its members, therefore enhancing the status of the group
8.3.2. In group favouratism
8.3.2.1. People favour those belonging to their in group.
8.3.3. Negative out group bias
8.3.3.1. The in group will seek to find negative aspects about the outgroup and derogate and discriminate against the out group members.
8.4. Strengths
8.4.1. Explains group philanthropy
8.4.1.1. The theory demonstrates why people empathize with and therefore want to help people like them
8.4.2. Explains in group bias
8.4.2.1. Theory can explain why people preference people who look or act like them
8.4.3. Supported by empirical evidence
8.5. Limitations
8.5.1. Poor predicitve power
8.5.1.1. It explains events but doesnt really make predictions about the future
8.5.2. Fails to explain group harmoney
8.5.2.1. In a liberal multicultural worls order there is lots of group harmony that isnt explained by this theory
9. Prejudice
9.1. Holding an attitude towards the members of a group, based soley on their membership of that group.
9.1.1. Causes
9.1.1.1. Social influence
9.1.1.1.1. Prejudicial attitudes towards others can be learnt from important people in our lives.
9.1.1.2. Intergroup competition
9.1.1.2.1. Competition between groups for limited resources can lead to prejudice.
9.1.1.3. Social categorisation
9.1.1.3.1. Mere grouping of people results in them and us mentality and this is enough to trigger in group favouratism and out group negative bias
9.1.1.4. Just world phenomenon
9.1.1.4.1. Tendency to believe that the world is just and that people get what they deserve.
9.1.2. Reducing - Contact hypothesis
9.1.2.1. Contact amongst individuals of different groups can decrease prejudice amongst the groups, four conditions must be evident for contact to work.
9.1.2.1.1. Intergroup contact
9.1.2.1.2. Equality of status
9.1.2.1.3. Superordinate goals
9.1.2.1.4. Mutual interdependence
10. Stereotypes
10.1. A collection of beliefs that an individual has about people who belong to a group, regardless of individual differences amoung members of the group.
10.1.1. Stereotyping
10.1.1.1. A form of social categorisation where people are grouped based on perceived shared features.
10.2. Function
10.2.1. Saves individuals from having to deal with the unique aspects of every individual they meet
10.2.2. Can make quick judgements about people especially in new or dangerous situations
10.3. Disadvantage
10.3.1. Lead to ignoring differences between individuals, therefore thinking things about people that might not be true
10.4. Formation
10.4.1. First interaction
10.4.1.1. First impressions count and may build stereotypes
10.4.2. Media
10.4.2.1. Images and ideas represented within media often build or enhance stereotypes
10.4.3. Observational learning
10.4.3.1. Observing others and mimicking those thoughts or behaviours