lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Summary Social Psychology complete
Social Psychology (MacEwan University)
Scan to open on Studocu
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Chapter 1: Introduction to Social Psychology
Psychologists: aim to understand and predict human behaviour
Solar Temple Case Study: Luc Jouret and Joseph Mambro introduced a cult to Quebec. The only way to
redeem oneself was death by fire (rebirth). >74 people committed mass murder-suicide.
Social influence: we all influence other people
Persuasion: direct attempts to influence others behaviour; includes coercive threatening
Direct social influence (such as persuasion) differs from indirect social influence, such as the
presence of others in the bystander effect. We are influenced by others even when they are not around.
Social psychology: the scientific study of the way in which people’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours are
influenced by the real or imagined presence of others
Social psychology differs from sociology. Both are concerned with the influence of social factors,
but differ on the level of analysis. Psychology focuses on the individual, and emphasizes the
psychological processes. Sociology is more concerned with the broad societal factors that influence
events. It tends to discuss social class, structure and institutions.
In summary psychology is micro focus (the individual) while sociology is macro focus (society as a
whole). In an aggression study, psychologists would study the mental processes (ex frustration) that
resulted in aggression, while sociology would study why some cultures tend to be more aggressive as a
whole.
Individual differences: the aspects of people’s personalities which make them different from
others (a focus of personality psychologists). Social psychologists believe the situation is often more
powerful than the personality in determining behaviour.
sociology
Social psychology
Personality psychology
General laws and theories about societies not
individuals
Studies the general psychological processes
common to people, and what makes them
susceptible to social influence
Studies the characteristics that make individuals
unique/ different from others
Fundamental attribution error: the tendency to overestimate the role of internal dispositional factors, ex
personality, versus situational factors in people’s behaviour. In the Solar Temple, they may not have all
been weak-willed; but had a charismatic cult leader.
We tend to blame victims for their plight. Many rape victims are seen as having “caused the
attack”. People justify blaming the victim when they did something to provoke the attack. Kristiansen
study of “Mrs. X”: participants who were told X had verbally provoked the attack blamed the victim for
her abuse.
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
We tend to oversimplify the cause of certain behaviours- underestimate the role of social situation.
Ross and Samuels Game Board study: when the game was called “Wall Street” 2/3 of participants
responded competitively regardless of personality. When called “Community” only one third responded
competitively. The name of the game conveys societal norms about what type of behaviour is
acceptable.
Construals: the way in which people perceive and interpret the social world
The study of social influences is subjective: to understand a persons reaction, we must identify
the subjective construal.
The emphasis on construals comes from Gestalt psychology: a school of psych stressing the
importance of studying the subjective way in which people interpret objects rather than the objective
traits of the object.
Textbook Review:
Social influence includes behaviour, thoughts and feelings, and overt acts.
Allport includes scientific study, thoughts, feelings and behaviour, and the presence of other people in
his definition of social psychology. Does not include unconscious processes.
Analysis for social psychology is at the individual level; in sociology at the societal level. Micro vs. macro
study.
Personality psychologists focus on individual differences as a cause of social behaviours, whereas social
psychologists believe general processes govern most people’s reactions. Social psychologists believe the
situational factors may have more influence than the dispositional factors.
Lewin emphasized the role of construals (our perceptions and interpretations-subjective).
“The whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts” is attributed to Gestalt psychology.
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Chapter 2: Research Methods
Kitty Genovese Case: a woman was brutally murdered, but no one called the police/ tried to help
We must examine the situation, not the people
Diffusion of responsibility: bystanders are less likely to help when other people
are present
Social psychology is an empirical study: we can gather information about behaviour by observing it and
creating scenarios to test it
Hindsight is 20/20: we tend to believe we could have predicted that outcome
Three methods of study : observational, correlational, and experimental
-science is a cumulative process and theories generally come from previous theories
-theory: an organized set of principles which explain an observation
- in Latane and Darley’s seizure experiment the less people present, the more likely the person was to
help (if one believed they were the only person who could hear the seizure, they helped 85% of the
time)
-independent variable: the variable which is manipulated to see if it effects another variable
-dependent variable: the variable which is influenced by the independent variable
-random assignment (most important) to groups allows us to minimize the role of personality/ personal
circumstances in experiments; the process by which all participants have an equal chance of taking part
in any condition
-cover story: a description of the purpose of a study, different from it’s true purpose; used to maintain
psychological realism
Ethical issues: avoid causing participants undue stress/hardship
Informed consent: explain the nature of the experiment to participants in advance and obtain consent
Deception: participants are misled about the purpose of a study or events, to obtain realism
-requirement of anonymity, and ability to withdraw at any time without consequence
Debriefing: at the end, the purpose of the experiment must be explained as well as any falsehoods
Attempts to undue discomfort; most people accept deception as sometimes necessary
Principles: Respect for dignity, informed consent, minimizing harm, freedom to withdraw without
consequence, privacy and confidentiality, use of deception only is necessary (requires debriefing)
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Type
Observational
Description
The researcher observes
people and systematically
records measurements of
behaviour
Can be obtrusive (active
participant, such as
joining the cult) or
unobtrusive (ex by video
camera)
Correlational
Experimental
Understand relationships
between variables.
Correlation coefficient:
how well one variable can
be predicted based on
another (ex height and
weight) out of ±1.00.;
bigger number= bigger
correlation
Researcher randomly
assigns participants to
conditions of the
independent variable;
other variables must be
controlled.
Attempt to create
external and internal
validity, random
assignment, psychological
realism. Control for all
other variables such as
higher arousal,
excitement, etc.
Pros
Cons
-video technology let
researchers study bullying
without overt
observation, which
lessens the action
-technology allows
observation of
spontaneous “free”
behaviour
-requires a clear
operational definition of
what is being studied (ex
bullying was defined by
Craig as a power
imbalance (height and
weight), with an intent of
harm, and a victim in
distress)
-operational definitions
are subjective (ex work
place harassment doesn’t
require height and
weight)
-Correlation doesn’t
equal causation; role of
an undetected third
variable
-Bidirectional arrow (ex
kids and violent TV)
-cannot infer causality (ex
Tillie ending droughts)
-Allows predictions of
future results; ex a
correlation of +.23 in
condom attitude tells us
not all who understand
the value of them use
them.
-The only way to
determine causal
relations
-useful in social psych to
determine the influence
of a social factor (ex
group size and affect)
- internal validity: nothing
other than the
independent variable can
change; requires random
assignment to groups
Random selection:
ensuring a sample is
representative of the
population, equal chance
of all being selected.
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
-ethical and practical
duties (can’t stage
Genovese case)
-often lacks external
validity: extent to which
the findings can be
generalized across people
and situations
-artificial and removed;
sometimes unrealistic
-lack mundane realism:
likelihood of occurrence
in real life (ex discussing
personal issues over
intercom)
-psychological realism is
more important than
mundane realism: the
processes triggered
should be similar to those
processes triggered in
everyday life
-expensive, timely
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Chapter 3: Social Cognition and Perception
Schemas: mental structures used to organize knowledge about the world by specific subject
The schemas we have in place affect what we notice and remember. They act as a filter for
information which is inconsistent or contradictory. We most often notice behaviour which fits our preconceptions.
Self-schema: schema of self including personality, likes/dislikes etc.
Carli study: when told a story about to others, we recall details which were not given, but fit the
events. Those who read the rape story recalled details of alcoholism, etc. which were not present.
Presentation of Legal Evidence Study: evidence is typically presented in either story
(chronological) or witness (increasing impact) order. Dramatic evidence for story order winning more
cases (generally used by prosecutors).
Accessibility: the extent to which a schemas/concept is at the forefront of your mind (more likely
to sway judgements). 2 kinds of accessibility exist: chronic and temporary. Chronic access: the
experiences you have had in life (ex mentally ill relatives) will influence judgements. Temporary is more
arbitrary, (such as reading a certain book) and generally is due to priming.
Priming: the process by which recent experiences increase a schemas accessibility. Often we are
unconscious that priming has shaped an event.
Higgins and Jones priming study: when primed with a list of negative (or positive)
characteristics a person later reading was more likely to judge a character as fitting within the traits
(positive or negative) depending on what they had read.
Heuristics: mental shortcuts which allow to eliminate some options; apply knowledge and schemas
Judgemental Heuristic: used to make choices quickly and efficiently
Availability heuristic: passing a judgement based on how easily an idea comes to mind (ex more likely to
recall celebrity names than generic names)
Representative heuristic: classifying based on its similarity to a typical case (ex someone speaking French
is from Quebec  ignores that Alberta has many French communities)
Base rate information: information about the frequency of one scenario amidst a number of scenarios
Engineer-Lawyer problem: even when told a 70% pool of lawyers exists, people still
identify the traits “characteristic” of an engineer as engineers. We tend to ignore the base rate in
exchange for availability heuristic, which leads to mistakes.
Anchoring and adjustment heuristic: adjusting ones value away from an initially given anchor value;
often answers are not adjusted sufficiently. Wilson study of anchoring: those who copied out numbers
instead of words provided must higher estimates of cancer rates (copied numbers in 4000’s and provided
estimates in 3000’s vs. in 1000s)
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Automatic vs. Controlled Thinking
Automatic processing: thinking that is nonconscious, effortless vs controlled processing: which requires
active and voluntary efforts. The more practice we have, the more automatic it becomes (automaticity of
reading). Controlled thinking occurs unusual events or motivated efforts.
Gilbert theory of automatic believing: of “seeing is believing”; we need checks and balances in place to
override the automatic acceptance of what we hear/see. Initial acceptance (automatic) assessment of
truth (controlled processing)  accept/deny (also controlled)
Correll revealed stereotyping: we are more likely to believe that a black is holding a gun vs. a
white person
Attribution theory: the way in which we explain the causes of behaviour, including our own
Fritz Heider “naïve or common sense psychology”: we try to understand others behaviour by piecing
together information to find a cause. Contributed the simple dichotomy: internal vs external attributions.
Internal attribution: a person behaves a certain way due to their internal factors, ex personality
External attribution: a person behaves a certain way due to the scenario they are in (assumes
most others would respond similarily)
University attribution study: those who were told that adjusting is often difficult due to quick
change were more likely to continue in university (external attribution rather than their own stupidity)
Fundamental attribution error: Heider observed that people tend to make internal attributions over
external ones. We overestimate the role of dispositional factors, and ignore situational factors.
Jones and Harris study of Castro essay: even when told the student had no choice, essay readers
still assigned their attitude about the topic (Fidel Castro) as similar to the topic’s position.
Error lead to victim blaming: Walster found victims are often blamed for the misfortunes; judges
find that rape had “implied consent”- which does not exist; myth of women being able to resist rape or
“deserving it” . By being educated on attribution error, you are less likely to commit it. Similarly, they
found those who study social science were less likely to make it then commerce students.
Gilbert and Malone studied how we are more likely to make dispositional judgements because
we are unaware of situations which occurred previously. People can be perceived currently, whereas
situations may have passed and are unobservable.
Taylor and Fiske on perceptual salience: information that is the focus; we overestimate the role
of easily visible information.
Found the more visual salience we have, the more likely we are to find that
person to be an influence (equal visual field results in equal influence)
Miller study on the Role of culture: western culture more individualistic (dispositional blame) vs.
collectivist cooperation
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Actor Observer difference: tendency to see others behaviour as dispositional but our own as
situational
-role of perceptual salience: we notice our own situation because we are more aware of it than
others situations and are swayed by our knowledge of it
Self-serving attributions: we credit our internal disposition (ex IQ) for our successes but blame our failure
on external factors (ex hard exam)
-seen in pro athletes, with individual sports they tend to attribute internal factors, with experienced
athletes, they also make internal attribution regardless of success or failure
Sande studied positive attributions made for both heroic actions (saving whales) and negative actions
(nuclear weapons). Both were attributed to negative attributions when told an “enemy state” had done
so.
Ross and Sicoly found we tend to assume we have done more of the work than others (ex group work, or
marriage)
Self serving bias has a strong cultural component of individualism, over harmony of collectivist culture.
Asian cultures tend to attribute success to external factors vs Canadian students internal factors.
Defensive attributions are explanations for behaviour to avoid vulnerability and threats to self-esteem.
Denial of mortality often seen in terminal illness, tragic accidents, etc.
Unrealistic optimism: belief that good things are more likely to happen to self, and bad things to
peers
Belief in a just world: bad things happen to bad people, assumption of deserving to suffer
This attributional error ignores random chance and occurrence
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Chapter 4 Self Knowledge: Understanding, Esteem and Evaluation
William James identified the duality of self; now known as self-concept and self-awareness which combine with
coherence. Gordon Gallup identified that other animals also have self-concept; in the “rouge test” Chimps and
orangutans were aware when their face had been painted and they were shown a mirror (recognize the change).
Self-concept: our knowledge about who we are; appears around age 2 in humans
Montemayor and Eisen found that as we get older, we describe our psychological factors of self more than
our physical factors.
Self concept clarity: some understand themselves better than others; the extent to which knowledge of
self is clear and consistent (emotional implications). Campbell found those who are low in self- concept clarity are
more likely to be neurotic, negative and ruminators.
-role of culture and independent vs interdependent view of self—do you define yourself as your own internal
processes, or in terms of your relationships with others and their thoughts and feelings. Western culture values
independence while eastern culture emphasizes connectedness (ex I am Hindu). When testing self-concept clarity
Asian cultures score lower than Western.
-gender difference in self-concept: women tend to be more intimate with their friends, and emphasize social
relationships; boys tend to dominate or focus on independent view of self when compared with women
(interdependent). Western men show collective interdependence: tend to rely on groups rather than individuals for
support (ex sports team)
Cross and Madison, Lafrance emphasize that gender does not determine self-concept, nor does it imply men do not
want intimate relationships
Self-awareness: the act of thinking about ourselves
Introspection: the process of looking inward to examine feelings and motives
we think about ourselves a minimal amount of the time (8%)
 Sometimes the reasons for our behaviours are unconscious (much of the self is unknown)
1. Self-awareness theory: when focused on self, we evaluate and compare our behaviour to internalized standards
and values (the objective observer mentality)
-When confronted with discrepancy in standard and behaviours, we either shut down the awareness (and
flee) or we change the behaviour
-research found that when we faced unpleasant thoughts about self (ie test failure) we are more likely to
turn our attention elsewhere (a video playing)- motivated to escape self-awareness can have aversive effects such
as alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide. Self focus also has positive effects: moral standards help us avoid trouble, find
spirituality etc.
2. self-perception theory (Daryl Bem): when we are uncertain about our feelings we use our behaviour to infer
what we are feeling
-Baldwin studied this in environmentalist behaviours. Students who were unsure as to their status (pro or anti)
were given a checklist of behaviours (good/bad) which then influenced the attitude they formed. People who were
sure of their beliefs were unchanged even if their behaviour indicated they were not what they believed to be.
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
3. self-schemas theory: the knowledge of self based on experience, helps us understand and predict our own
behaviour. Self schemas determine what events you recall (if you consider yourself to be kind you recall many
instances of kindness)
4. social interaction theory: we see ourselves through the eyes of others; James stressed that relationships define
us, and we present different “selves” in different situations
-looking glass self: the idea that we see ourselves through others and incorporate their views into self-concept
-we can prime ourselves to think like our relatives (ex more conservative) our our friends (ex more open to various
cultures). Our reactions depend on who’s viewpoint we adopt. Similarly when exposed to a negative face
(unconscious priming) we evaluate ourselves/ our work more negatively than an approving face. Thus we are
partially determined by the internal audience we have in mind whether they be negative or approving.
5. social comparison theory: idea that we learn about our own abilities by comparing ourselves to others
-we try to balance having accurate self-views, with still feeling good about ourselves
-two types of social comparison: upward (compare with those who are superior in ability)-can be depressing or
inspiring
Downward (compare with those who are inferior in ability)- even occurs in
cancer patients (more optimistic when they compare with more ill patients)
-using social comparison to promote social good: Siero experiment which graphed participant improvement in
energy conservation led to the entire workplace improving (social comparison/ competition) . We are inspired by
“superstars” when comparing to our normal self (inspires improvement) but depressed by the same superstars
when even our best self does not measure up
6. self-discrepancy theory (Higgins) : the theory that we become distressed when our sense of self is discrepant
from self-concept and personal standards
-we attempt to relieve this stress by changing our thoughts (ex the test was unfair) or exerting greater effort
-cultures which emphasize interdependence value self-criticism because it leads to improvement; Thus Asian
cultures experience more discrepancy between ideal and actual self- but find the discrepancy less depressing than
Western cultures who see it as total failure
7. self-evaluation maintenance theory: one’s self-concept can be threatened by another persons behaviour;
determined by the closeness of the person and the value of the skill they hold
-one only experiences discomfort when the person is superior in an attribute you value in yourself; when it is an
attribute you don’t desire/need you value and condone their success
-when the person is close to us, we prefer the test on which we received the same mark even if it was lower than
the mark elsewhere, simply because someone did not outperform us. It is less threatening to perform poorly than
to have a close friend trump us.
-if we feel others success is attainable we are inspired; when it is unattainable we are defeated
-three methods of reducing discomfort: create distance (We aren’t friends anymore), reduce relevance of the skill
(find a new hobby/skill), change performance (either practice skill or sabotage the other individual). In summary
we are highly motivated to restore self-esteem even at the expense of relationships: we are more likely to help a
stranger versus a friend in self-relevant tasks.
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
8. self-affirmation theory: we reduce the cognitive dissonance which is (threatening to self-concept) by affirming
competence elsewhere
-dissonance occurs when there is discrepancy between beliefs and actions
-Steele and Gonalez: people who can affirm their values (science majors in lab coats) can better avoid the
dissonance and thus do not distort their perceptions/change their chosen values
- people use relationships as self-affirmation: exaggerate how much their partner appreciates them to reduce the
dissonance of being told they were not intelligent
-culture plays a role in affirmation; western cultures experience greater dissonance when told they are inferior,
whereas Japanese students do not change their ratings (even when they feel inferior)
Is self-evaluation accurate?
-self enhancement: tendency to hold unrealistic positive perception of self; above average perception
Campbell false uniqueness effect: students believe they share common weaknesses, but that their
strengths are unique to them
Appears to be a western phenomenon (Asian culture tends to have a more negative self-image) even at a
young age. Asian cultures also tend to rate their family, school etc. as inferior- Western rate it as higher than
average.  differences in self-esteem
-self-verification theory: seek confirmation of self-concept, whether positive of negative; can conflict with desire to
see oneself as good
Caused by two factors: we experience confusion to have our views of self disconfirmed
Difficult to interact with those who view us differently than our own
View (embarrassed of our inadequacy)
When we view our skill (X) in a negative light, but an individual sees it as positive, self-enhancement and
self-verification conflict. Research suggests that self-verification often wins (Swann found we maintain relationships
where our self-concept is similar to others perceptions of us).
-depends on the trait/skill being evaluated (ex we want high ratings for attractiveness from partners, but want
honesty from friends)
-relationship with the person (ex we prefer positivity over accuracy from teammates, but value honesty in nonathletic skills feedback)
-even if we don’t feel improvement is possible, we prefer positivity over accuracy (unless the negative self-concept
is entrenched permanently). If we believe we can change easily, we prefer accurate feedback
Chapter 5 Attitude and Attitude Change
Attitude: an evaluation of a person, object or idea; positive or negative, they involve a reaction to
something. Attitudes are made of an affective component, consisting of an emotional reaction toward
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
the attitude component, a cognitive component, consisting of thoughts and beliefs, and a behavioural
component, actions or other observable behaviours.
-not all attitudes built equal (one experience vs many). Waterloo study found we are more likely to hold
negative cognitive attitudes (belief they will harm us), positive affective attitudes (heart-warming) and
affective attitudes regarding social issues (ie capital punishment).
Affectively based attitudes: attitude based mostly on emotion (subjective, not objective pros and cons)
Cognitively based attitudes: an attitude based mostly on beliefs about the properties of an object
Objective appraisal: meaning that we classify objects according to rewards and
punishment
Behavioural based attitudes: attitude based on observations of how one behaves
self-perception theory: we don’t know how we feel until we behave
-attitudes often are in stark contrast to our actions (in 1930’s many would serve the Chinese but would
say they wouldn’t) ; Wicker also found attitudes are poor predictor of behaviour
Theory of planned behaviour: a theory that the best predictors of a person’s planned behaviours are the
person’s attitudes toward specific behaviours (Davidson and Jaccard: the more specific an attitude, the
more predictive it is ie using birth control), subjective norms (how others will view my behaviour), and
perceived behavioural control
Application for safer sex: positive attitudes to condoms does not mean they are used
Subjective norms: university condom usage is correlated to peers and sexual partners opinions on them
Belief that suggestion might lead to mistrust/hard feelings
Behavioural Control (Perceived): if we think a behaviour is difficult to do we are less likely to do so (ie
buying condoms is embarrassing)
Behavioural intentions: people will not use condoms unless they intend to do so
Alcohol leads to lowered intention
Attitude change: what is the best method of changing attitudes?
Persuasive communication: communication advocating a particular side of an issue
Yale attitude change approach (Hovland): explored source of communication and communication
himself (quality of arguments etc.) and the nature of the audience (hostile vs friendly)
-credible and attractive (physical/personable) speakers, present both sides- but refute the side you don’t
support, more persuaded by disguised persuasion, primacy effect when speech is back to back, recency
when there is a break between speeches, age 18-25 of moderate self-esteem, low intelligence
Chaiken’s Heuristic systematic model of persuasion: the theory that there are 2 ways that persuasion
causes attitude change- people either process the merits (systematic processing) or use mental heuristics
(heuristics processing, ex expert authority)
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Elaboration likelihood model: two routes to attitude change- central route (when people are motivated
and focus on the arguments) and the peripheral route (when people are swayed by surface
characteristics, ie who gave the speech)
-both models believe in certain scenarios, people will focus on the arguments (requires motivation and
ability to focus) while in others, they are swayed by surface characteristics
-when attitude change is based on central/systematic, it is more likely to remain changed and resist
counter-persuasion. Perlini and Ward found active participation (role-play) led to increased
understanding and positive attitudes of AIDS prevention
Fear arousing communication: a persuasion tactic which attempts to change attitudes using fear
Leventhal proved moderate fear and active listening work to reduce the fear. By using both a film
on lung cancer and a pamphlet on how to quit he elicited better results than using only one technique.
Fear and techniques of education must be given together. If people feel too threatened they become
defensive and no longer reason rationally Conwell coupled high fear with humour for better results.
Best technique for attitude change is fire with fire. If an attitude is affective, appeal to emotion, if it is
cognitive, appeal to logic and reason.
Subliminal advertising : messages that are not consciously perceive but influence judgements and
attitudes; ex Vicary flashed words regarding Coke and popcorn across a screen and claimed his sales
skyrocketed at the concession
-no evidence for subliminal influence in everyday life, including self-help tapes; yet Greenwald proved
that the participants thought the tapes were working- ads are most powerful with conscious perception
-recall from chapter 4, the disapproving pope which flashed by influenced participants, but this is a lab
setting-carefully controlled, and not related to attitude
Resisting persuasion:
1. McGuire and Attitude Inoculation: the process of making people immune to attempts to change
attitudes by exposing them to small “doses” of counter-arguments
-by inoculating with weak arguments, had the opportunity to consider why these are unfounded
positions, thus in a better position to resist stronger attacks; not inoculated group was highly
susceptible.
-can be extended to peer pressure
2. Cognitive dissonance : discomfort caused by holding contradictory behaviours or attitudes
-Festinger proposed three routes to change: change our behaviour, change our dissonant attitude, add
new beliefs which justify the behaviour
- post-decision dissonance: after making a choice we experience dissonance on giving up the other
choice; involves devaluing the option we gave up and artificially enhancing the option we chose to
resolve dissonance.
Brehm appliances: after receiving the appliance the women rated them higher, after only 20 minutes.
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Knox and Inkster: after placing a bet on horses people were more confident than before placing bets
Dissonance reduction and morality: Mills studied cheating in 6 th graders. If they had cheated on the
competitive exam, the next day their attitudes were more lenient to cheating than before (reducing
dissonance has a long term effect)
Justifying effort: tendency to increase liking of something if we worked hard to get it
-Aronson and Mills linked effort with dissonance reduction. University students were admitted to the
group discussion with varying degrees of effort. Those who exerted great effort enjoyed it more than
those who didn’t.
-Caudron study: the victims of hazing do not despise those who did it, they see it as comradery
When submitting to embarrassing initiation we justify the experience to avoid the dissonance of
feeling foolish (justify initiation)
-external justification: a person’s reason or explanation for dissonant behaviour that resides outside the
individual (reward/ avoid punishment)
-internal justification: reducing dissonance by changing ones attitude or behaviour
-counter attitudinal advocacy: the process that occurs when a person states an attitude or belief runs
counter to the private belief or attitude (“I hate X”, but really you like X)- minimal external justification,
but opinion moves toward public statement
Festinger and Carlsmith had students tell another student the task at hand was fun (when it
wasn’t). Those who received large external justification ($20 rather than 1) rated the activities as dull
and boring, $1 as enjoyable. Proves when we tell a lie with low external justification, we are more likely
to convince ourselves of it ourselves (internal justification)
Applies to increasing social good: Leippe and Eisenstadt when asked to write a proposal
increasing funding for African Americans and decreasing Caucasian funding- later they had more
favorable attitudes towards Africans
Aronson made students aware of their own unsafe sex practices, then asked them to make a
video about sex for highschoolers (high state of dissonance), which elicited the buying of condomschange in behaviour “practice what you preach”; called hypocrisy condition. Those who were unaware
of their own unsafe sex were less likely to buy (less dissonance).
Water conservation at universities does not increase with signs- but when students signed a
poster advertising the conservation, they took shorter showers (reduce dissonance from hypocrisy)
Insufficient punishment: a form of insufficient justification; dissonance is aroused when individuals lack
external justification for having resisted- usually resulting in devaluing the object
-applies to bullying: external punishments which are large such as threatening suspension give
external justification to the change in behaviour. Minor punishment elicits change in attitude (I stopped
because it wasn’t as fun as I thought)
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
-toy study: children were forbidden a toy with large (take it away) or minor (annoyance) external
justification. The children with large EJ rated the toy as highly desirable later, while the others the low EJ
convinced themselves (attitude change) they did not want the toy as much
-self justification: the tendency to justify or actions to maintain self-esteem
Dissonance is used to justify cruel actions. Canadian peacekeepers tortured and killed Shidane Arone
(16) and posed for pictures with his body. –Justified it as orders from officials
Dehumanization: the treatment of individuals as less than human- ex ABDU GHRAIB Jail and the
stripping of prisoners; involves justifying the victims as deserving of violence (increases over time- Nazi)
Rationalization trap: the tendency to reduce dissonance through self-justification for immoral
actions; increases immorality over time. Self affirmation: a cognitive buffer, plays a role in
rationalization (ie “I may have cheated, but I donated blood last week; I am still good”)
Boosting students self-esteem right before a card game makes them less likely to cheat versus
lowering their self-esteem.
Severe Cognitive dissonance in the Solar Temple Case: great level of dissonance, isolated from other
dissident views. By making sacrifices (ex sex slavery, giving up possessions, etc.) they increased their
commitment to the cult. Questioning beliefs after making sacrifices would create too much dissonance.
Chapter 6 Conformity
Reena Virk was a BC teenager who was beaten and drowned by her peer (others joined in). Why did
others conform? a) desire to belong b) risk of being turned on (societal disapproval)
Conformity: a change in behaviour due to the real or imagined influence of others
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
A neutral event (not good/bad, this is determined by the outcome)
-North America stresses non-conformity (individualism); we believe our behaviour is not influenced by
others when it really is
Informational social influence: conforming because we believe another person’s interpretation is more
correct than ours- to help us choose the appropriate course of action. Occurs in three scenarios:
ambiguous stimuli (ie fire alarm), crises, or expert presence
Muzafer Sharif study: the dot in the dark room appears to be a different distance for everyone
based on their eyesight. When placed in a group however, everyone will give similar (conformist)
answers
Private acceptance: conforming due to a genuine belief that what they are saying/doing is right
-later testing alone revealed the person would stick to the group number (truly believed it)
Public compliance: conforming to others without necessarily believing in the action
Normative social influence: the influence of others lead to conformity because we want to be acceptedoften results in public compliance but not private acceptance
-ie taking ecstasy even though you don’t want to and understand the risks
-social norms: the implicit or explicit rule outlined by a group for beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes
Members who don’t conform are seen as deviant. Schater’s Johnny Rocco case study: when an
individual disagrees with the group, they are questioned, and if they still don’t conform they cast out
(ignored, punished, etc.)
Master Seamen Biden was outcast from the army for voicing complaints about medical problems
related to the anthrax vaccine—demoted to junior level tasks
A good example of conformity is littering- Reno and Kalgreen studied how if someone witnesses
another picking up litter, they are less likely to litter soon after.
Asch Line of Judgement:
-even when the answer is obvious, we will conform to the group and give the wrong answer 66% of the
time to avoid making a fool of ourselves
-example of normative social influence: public compliance even without private acceptance
-we do not risk societal disapproval, even with complete strangers
Body image: body conformity; thinness is appealing in women and musculature is desirable in men
-normative influences regarding the body lead to eating disorders and anabolic steroid use
Bibb Latane’s social impact theory: conforming to social influence depends on the strength (how
important are the people), immediacy (how close in space and time) and number of people in the group
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
-we are more likely to conform with high strength and immediacy (groups important/ close to us)
-Chinese Canadian study: when reminded of our minority differences (ie Chinese see themselves in a
mirror) we are more likely to conform our ratings/ actions to the majority (rated art similar to the
European Canadians)
-conformity increases with the number of peers, but peaks in intensity at about 5 peers
-Bond and Smith proved that collectivist cultures (aim to promote harmony) even more likely to conform
in Asch line test
Avoiding Normative influence:
1. Stop and think (assess your awareness)
2. Ally: find another person who thinks the way you do (in Asch line test, if one participant gave the
correct answer, we would too; conformity drops to 6%)
Minority Influence: a minority number of group members influence the majority
Moscovici: if the minority holds a consistent view, the majority will take notice and may switch views
-exert influence through informational social influence (normative rarely influences, since they are the
minority opinion anyway)
-does not apply to jury verdicts; they go the majority’s way 97% of the time. In rare cases jurors are
dismissed for their dissent (Sophonow trial) ; trials require unanimity because it is proven to lead to
more careful consideration of evidence and because minorities can change minds about degree of
guiltiness. Pennington and Hastie found that a minority isn’t likely to change majority from first degree
murder to not guilty, but can change them to second degree (less severe).
Compliance: a direct change in behaviour due to a request from another person
Door in the face technique: after presenting a large request, present a smaller request (hope they will
acquiesce after saying no once)
proven 3x more likely; after asking students for a long term commitment, a short commitment
was more likely to be agreed to – Cialdini juvenile delinquent study
relies on the reciprocity norm: receiving anything from the other person (ie compromise)
requires you to reciprocate in response; sending out a Christmas card causes one to send one back –
even with a total stranger; meeting halfway
Foot in the door technique: begin with a small request before the bigger one
Freedman and Fraser found that after signing a safe driving petition, people were more likely to
allow a sign on their lawn
Triggered by a change in self-perception: once we see ourselves as helpful, we continue to help
Foot in the door technique is better for long-term (ie collecting donations every year)
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Lowballing : agree to buy at low-cost, then tack on extra costs to raise the price (frequently the buyer
still buys)
Cialdini demonstrated this with car dealerships: people will buy at the higher price
1) Idea of commitment- you already signed the cheque
2) Triggering of excitement- want to avoid letdown
3) Only slightly higher than other dealerships- why make the effort to go elsewhere
Obedience: conformity to the commands of authority
My Lai massacre in Vietnam: innocent villagers were killed at the Lietenants command
-
Role of informational influence (right thing to do), normative influence (avoid social rejection)
and mindlessness (no sense of responsibility for actions)
Staneley Milgram shock experiment: deliver progressive shocks for each mistake; 62.5 % administered a
deathly level of shock
-normative pressure to continue; the authority figure is insistent
-when another “teacher” refused, only 10% continued to the max level of shock
-informational influence: when in a state of conflict we rely on the experimenter to guide our actions
-when not told to increase shocks, the suggestion of another teacher didn’t have as much influence as
the researcher (role of expert); likewise, when the experimenters disagreed, all participants stopped
(loss of expert role)
-loss of personal responsibility for actions has massive effects on the outcome (ie Nazi Germany)
Chapter 7: Group Processes
-soldiers who questioned the anthrax vaccine were court-martialled (violation of human rights)
Group: a collection of two or more people who interact (interdependence); needs and goals cause reliance on each other
Thus groups are more than people occupying the same space- they are interacting units with common purpose
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Fulfills human need to belong, but also has an evolutionary advantage of safety in numbers (Baumeister and
Leary); groups also help define who we are
Average group size is 2-6; if groups are too large, interaction is difficult (ie university is not a group)
Groups tend to be similar in beliefs, age, sex (attracted to similarity, but also increasing similarity with time)
Social role: shared expectations in a group about how particular people should behave; creates expectations
Serious potential for harm: Zimbardo prison study, guards got abusive/lost decency of personality
Other con that role expectations can be unfair/inconsistent/costly for rule breakers (think boss)
Different from norms, which specify how all members should behave
Social facilitation: the tendency for people to better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks when they are in the
presence of others and can be evaluated
Two forms a)performing amidst others or b)performing with observers;
either way it is a non-social environment
Herman cockroach study: showed that amidst their peers cockroaches performed better in front of other roaches
Consistent findings in humans: the presence of others improves performance (Triplett and fishing rod winding;
faster with peers present) when the task is simple, when the task is complex it decreases performance (ie complex maze).
Shown in Michaels pool study: those who were good at pool (hence its simple) performed much better than novice
players (who find pool tough).
Zajonc on the dominance response: the presence of others increases physiological arousal; when this arousal exists it is
easier to do something simple (called dominant response) but harder to do something hard.
Arousal may be caused by: a)people make us more alert(ie they may ask a question)
b)evaluation apprehension causes mild arousal (desire to do well in front of others)
c) other people are distracting (state of conflicting attention causes arousal); Baron found
social facilitation also caused by stimuli (ie flashing light)
Study alone (new=difficult) but test in groups (if the material is well-known)
Social loafing: the tendency for us to do worse on simple tasks but better on tough ones when in the presence of others
who are not evaluating them
-triggered by relaxation (Ringelmann rope study: found that men tug less hard on a rope in groups; exert more effort
alone on the easy task)
-improved performance on difficult tasks due to no fear of being evaluated. Jackson and Williams maze test: participants
did better on hard mazes and worse on easy ones when they believed they were not being evaluated individually
-employment application: individual work for easy tasks, allow group work for tough tasks
Deindividuation: the loosening of normal constraints on behaviour when people are in a group, leads to impulsive/
deviant acts ; ie Mullen accounts of lynching ; the ># of mobmembers, the more violent
Watson found that warriors who use disguise (ie war paint) are more likely to torture/ be violent
Matti B. case: teen was violently attacked by other masked teens; the act of wearing uniform/disguise makes us feel less
accountable for actions (less likely to be singled out for actions); in addition the presence of others lowers self
awareness of moral standards (cannot focus inward and outward at the same time).
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Athletes play more aggressively in uniform than in regular clothing. Certain colors also tied to aggressive play and a
greater number of penalties, namely black.
Group decisions:
-groups do better if they rely on the individual of most expertise to lead, and are stimulated by other’s comments
-Steiner’s process loss: any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving
-groups do well only if the most talented member can convince them they are right (not easy, we don’t like to admit
defeat). In addition identifying the competent member is difficult/ they may not want to speak for group (normative
conformity pressure), and communication is an issue.
-groups fail to share unique information, focusing on what is known by all; seen with doctors/different patient histories
Exhibited in Candidate A study: when choosing a candidate, they focused on shared information, wehther it be good or
bad and based their decisions on this. In reality, the candidate was equal in value each time.
Solved by assigning different group members areas of expertise to focus on
-groupthink: a kind of thinking in which maintaining group solidarity leads to sacrificing the facts realistically
-emphasizes group cohesiveness: qualities of a group that bind members and promote liking of other members
Cohesiveness also results from a dominating leader, and isolation to contrary views
People do not voice contrary views (self-censorship); fear of ruining espirits de
corps (morale) ; creates illusion of unanimity
Mindguards: group members who assure the leader is shielded from contrary views
or info that might make them question the decision of the group.
-groupthink leads to inferior decisions (lacks alternatives, contingency plans)
-groupthink exhibited by military with vaccine and the Challenger ;
-cohesiveness doesn’t equal groupthink automatically; other factors such as domineering leader or high stress decisions
-preventing groupthink: impartial leader, , invite dissent/contrary views, invite non-group members, use sub-group
discussion, secret ballots (no censorship/ fear of recrimination from group)
Group polarization: shown by choice dilemma questionnaires (CDQ); the tendency to make more extreme decisions than
the initial inclinations of individual members
-risky shif: groups make more risky choices than individuals; but still adhere to the direction of the individuals (ie chess
study: individuals take risk on 30% chance, while groups takes risk on 10% chance—same direction though to accept the
risk or become more conservative based on individual inclinations)
-polarization due to persuasive argument interpretation: all others bring argument you did not consider, which add to
your arguments and social comparison: people take a position similar to others in order to be liked, but slightly more
extreme in an attempt to seem impressive/knowledgeable
Great person theory: certain personality traits make for good leaders, regardless of the situation
--personality and leadership not necessarily correlated (ie Bradley only found dominance consistent in military leaders)
- not just about personality; different personalities rule different situations best
Fiedler’s Contingency theory of leadership: theory that leadership effectiveness depends on how task or relationship
oriented the leader is, and how much control/influence leader has over group. The task related leader is more concerned
with getting the job done, while the relationship oriented is more focused with feelings between workers.
-neither type of leader is better; context dependent (high vs. low control situations)
-high control situations consist of good relationships and high-productivity of company, low control situations consist of
poor relationships, work is not clearly defined- in both high (no need to worry about feelings) and low (require
imposition of order), use task-oriented leadership
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
-in moderate situations relationship-oriented leadership is best (resolve minor relationship issues and carry on)
-women with masculine leader traits are assessed more negatively than men with these traits, especially when men
evaluate; women are seen as “nurturing” and men as “dominant”
-prejudice against female workers: if they are masculine, they are perceived negatively, but if they are feminine they are
perceived as lesser leaders (Eagly study)
Conflict and cooperation:
Deutsch and Krauss study: threats are not effective in reducing conflict. Truck study: using a gate to block one company’s
path leads to retaliation, meaning both companies lost money (unilateral threat condition), in the bilateral threat
condition, neither side accepted that using their gate resulted in stalemate—even greater profit loss.
Communication/sharing resulted in the highest profits.
Negotiation: communication between opposing sides in conflict, consisting of offers and counteroffers-solution is found
when both parties agree on conditions
-assumption that one party will always gain more than the other- failure to recognize that we values some gains (ie raise)
over others (ie vacation days)
-assume that we value most others value most is not always true; Claude proved that we assume others know our goals
when in fact, they are guessing them (no better than chance); both outside and inside observers cannot identify group
goals, tendency to distrust other side
-integrative solutions: both parties make trade-offs according to which item they want the most, each conceds/gives in
most on issues not important to self, but to other side
-neutral mediators: a neutral party is better at recognizing mutually agreeable solutions
Chapter 8: Interpersonal attractions
Berschied hypothesized that survival depends on social interactions and determining who is good and bad for us.
Propinquity: the more we see and interact with a person the more likely they are to become our friend; a
determinant of attraction is proximity; works on a micro level
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Festinger, Schater and Black at MIT, proved that 65% of the residents mentioned people living in the same
building as friends; in addition the closer the room proximity, the greater the likelihood (ie 41% mentioned a
neighbour as a friend, while only 10% mentioned the person at the other end of the hall). Propinquity works on the
mere exposure effect: familiarity; the more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more likely we are to like it (can
work the opposite w/ with unpleasant people)
Moreland and Beach proved exposure effect by having students rate a classmate on their attractiveness
(the more they attended the higher the score)
Application to internet relationships
-people can lie/exaggerate more easily, develop intimacy too fast
-research shows people are more comfortable to express themselves online and report higher rating for internet
person than in real life ( McKenna), found to also be high in quality (breakup rate about the same on and offline)
Similarity: attraction to people who are like us Complementarity: attraction to opposites of us
-more likely to be close to similar people (Byrne showed we like people with similar opinions)
-Newcomb paired similar roommates; more likely to become friends than dissimilar ones
-attracted to similar attitudes, leisure activities, similar communication style, interpersonality
-we are inclined to initiate relationships with those who will like us (similar interests)
-similar people serve as social validation for our beliefs
-rewards of interaction: we assume it is pleasurable to spend time with a similar viewpoint
Reciprocal liking: when two people like each other
-reciprocity can make up for a lack of similarity; we base our liking of others on whether they like us
-men expressed liking for a woman with eye contact and good listening even if she was dissimilar
-Curtis and Miller describe it as a self-fulfilling prophecy: when we believed we are liked by a classmate, we are
more likely to disclose about ourselves and be agreeable v. disliked
-influenced by self concept: negative people tend to assume they are not liked (thus no reciprocation)
Physical attraction: both genders emphasize attractiveness as a determinant in dating (Walster)
-neither women nor men place physical attractiveness at the top when asked, yet both use it to determine first
impression (attractiveness determines desirability); we are aware of the value we place on looks, when we believe
we could be caught in a lie.
-Cunningham found that men look for large eyes, small nose, small cheekbones, high brows, small chin and
cheekbones; women look for large eyes, prominent cheekbones, large chin and smile
- even different cultures and ethnic groups have similar ideals of beauty
What is beautiful is good: we tend to believe beautiful people are also good
-Lind study found that we rate both old and young attractive women higher than unattractive, but men will rate the
younger one higher than the older one when both are attractive
-Eagly and Feingold found we rate them higher in social competence: ie extrovert, sociable, etc; makes sense
because we tend to give beautiful people more social spotlight
-self-fufilling prophecy: Snyder found that men who spoke with females who were believed to be attractive we
warmer (thus she responded more warmly); when her tape was played for another male, he rated the warm
(attractive) respondents as more attractive (Andersen and Bem reversed the roles and showed the same outcome)
Arousal Misattribution: the mistaken inferences we make about why we are feeling a certain way
-Dutton and Aron showed we mistake fear arousal for attraction (more likely to reconnect after a scary experience
than a control one)
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
In summary four types of attraction: propinquity, similarity, reciprocal liking, physical attractiveness
Love (Walster and Berscheid)
-two kinds of companionate love: the feelings of affection/intimacy for someone we care about
And passionate love: intense longing and physiological arousal; when reciprocated we feel fulfillment and ecstasy,
but when not we feel sadness and despair
-passionate love as measured by Springer’s scale consists of uncontrollable thoughts, intense feelings and overt
acts to target affection
Sternbergs triangular theory: different types of love combine intimacy, passion and commitment
Intimacy: a feeling of closeness/connection
passion: arousal, sexual attraction
Commitment: short term (to love them) and long term (to continue to love them)
-when asked to describe love, companionate features play
more of a role (intimacy, caring, warmth) than passionate
features (heart rate, sexual attraction, obsessive thoughts)
-men more likely to fall in love quickly and endorse
stereotypes such as “true love”
-women more friendship based
-western cultures emphasis on autonomy leads to higher value of romantic love as a personal experience (ie versus
family choosing husband/wife)
-eastern culture more likely to describe companionate love
Positive illusion: idealizing the relationship in order to maintain it
-we rate our partner higher in traits (ie intelligence) than they rate themselves; and we rate them close to what our
ideal standard is
-Murray and Holmes found idealization leads to better relationships; survival value (endurance)
-our partners become better, trying to meet our standard
We maintain relationships based on theories:
a)
Evolutionary: women are attracted to men with resources (wealth) and men attracted to women with
attractiveness (fertility), to produce the best chance of reproductive success
-females must pick the best mate possible (ambition, industriousness), due to constraints of child-bearing,
while men should mate frequently when possible
-women more likely to choose attractive mate if they have the means to support themself
-both value honesty, trust and pleasantness
-proved that women are more likely to emphasize their beauty and men their ambition in personal ads;
more likely to get a response in older men and younger women
-theory is critiqued as overly flexible (can explain anything), ignores cultural norms/ideals
b) Attachment theory: emphasis on relationship with parent in infancy
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
--Bowlby and Ainsworth identified attachment styles: the expectations we develop about relationships
with other based on infancy and the primary caregiver
-secure attachment: trust (no fear of abandonment), positive self concept/worth; caregiver responded to
needs and was affectionate
-avoidant attachment: caregiver was aloof and distant, non-intimate; the person becomes suppressed in
their needs and struggles with intimacy
-anxious ambivalent style: a mix of reactions from caregiver (unpredictable), overbearing; depicted by
fear that others will not reciprocate intimate desires (high anxiety), obsessive
-avoidant style may actually split into 2: fearful: close relationships are avoided due to mistrust/fear of
being hurt and dismissive: the person is self-sufficient, does not need close relationships
-we have different attachment styles to different people (McGill)
-Baldwin and Fehr: attachment styles are schemas not stable personality traits (based on our experience
we relate certain information with people
c) Social exchange theory: how people feel about their relationship depends on cost-benefit analysis, the
kind of relationship they think they deserve, and the chance of a better relationship
-reward cost ratio: how people feel about their relationship depends on the rewards and costs (if the ratio
is not favourable, dissatisfaction will end the relationship)
-comparison level: people’s expectations about what they deserve in rewards and cost
-comparison level of alternatives: peoples expectations of reward/costs in other potential relationships
(ie high level more likely to leave; feelings they could do better)
-Rusbalt’s investment model: relationship commitment depends on satisfaction with rewards/costs and
both comparison and alternatives, and how much they have invested in the relationship that would be
lost if they lef it
Includes both tangible things and emotional investment; may account for abuse victims
d) Equity theory: reciprocity; we are satisfied in relationships where our rewards/costs and contributions are
similar to the other persons
-most stable type, v. over and underbenefited in which both partners are uneasy (guilt/jealousy)
e) exchange and communal relationships: our close relationships are less based on equity than desire to help
each other; only distant relationships require equity
exchange relationships: relationships governed by the need for equity/ratio of reward and cost
Communal relationships: primary concern is being responsive to others needs, regardless of reciprocity (ie
raising children)
Ending relationships: over 1/3 of Canadian marriages end in divorce (esp. homosexual ones)
-if the factors which initially attracted you are no longer present, relationship may end
-Felmlee: fatal attractions, the trait that attracted you now causes problems (often dissimilarities)
-low reward and high cost a good predictor; and when attractive alternatives exist
-Aron and sheer boredom: especially in marriage, missing out on excitement (not socially acceptable in friendship,
so we use other reasons)
Distress of breakups: highest in the rejected, higher level of satisfaction or commitment creates greater distress
PSYC 233
Perspectives on Personality Chapter 1
-describing someones personality involves narrowing the information you have into a set of qualities
(essence of the person)
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
-generic use of personality refers to a specific person, but in psychology it refers to the conception of
personality (abstract, applies to everyone)
-the word personality conveys consistency or continuity about a person across time/situation
Personality is consistency, internal causality, and distinctness. Internal Causality conveys that a persons
reaction comes from within (internal causal force); the sense that a person can be summarized within a
few characteristics- the more central the characteristic is, the more useful it is to predict future
behaviour
Allport defines personality: a dynamic organization, inside the person, of psychophysical systems that
create a person’s characteristic patterns
-
Personality has organization (not just random pieces)
Personality has active processes within it; it doesn’t “lie there”
Personality is a psychological concept, but is tied to the physical body
Personality is a causal force, determining relationships
Personality shows up with consistency of actions/ behaviours
Personality is displayed in various forms : thoughts, feelings, behaviour, words, etc.
Fundamental Issue of Personality Psych: existence of individual differences (where do the differences
come from? Traits, genes, experience?)
Intrapersonal functioning: psychological processes of a person;
similar set of processes within a person still can lead to different results (ex fight or flight- what process is
occurring?). Example if behaviour is a product of motivation what changes occur when one goes from
studying to socializing?
Theory: a summary statement or set of principles about a class of events (can be specific or broad)
-two purposes: explain a phenomena (reason for a known occurrence) and allows prediction of future
results. Even the predictive function of theories is ambiguous often (in broad theories)
-must be testable (scientifically), and can be revised many times to strengthen it (continuous cycle of
theory and researching, followed by modification)
-a good theory has more than one source of support (empirical support in many forms). Parsimony: rely
on as few assumptions as possible (simplicity first). Theory should be stimulating (provoke enthusiasm,
interest, outraging
Analysis of theory value is subjective: some fit your worldview better than others/ evidence we support
theories which fit our self-description (Johnson, Germer). William James said we choose theories which
are interesting, aesthetic, and meet our emotional needs.
Chapter 9 Prosocial behaviour and Aggression
-case of Gino Laplante, who froze to death on the sidewalk as people ignored his cries for help
-case of John Rokosh who placed in third because he helped a fellow Olympian back to his feet
Why do different scenarios create different responses?
Prosocial behaviour: any act performed with the goal of benefiting another person (can be out of self-interest)
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Altruism: the desire to help another even if it costs you personally
-according to Darwin natural selection promotes the genes that promote individual survival
-evolutionary psychology attempts to explain social behaviour in terms of genetic factors/natural selection
-notion of kin selection: a behaviour which helps a genetic relative is favoured by natural selection (still doesn’t account
for strangers helping strangers)
-theory of norm of reciprocity: the expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood they will help us in the
future; group cooperation can lead to better chances of survival (reciprocity may have a genetic base)
-Binti gorilla: child who fell into her pit was cuddled and placed near a door for rescue (training or instinct)
Social exchange theory: altruism based on self-interest; desire to maximize rewards and minimize cost
We only help people when the benefits outweigh the costs (no true altruism)
We help to relieve our own distress from witnessing suffering, to gain social approval, and to
increase self-worth
Helping someone is investing in a future where they may return the favour “social contract”
Empathy and altruism: Batson advocated that people help out of kindness; pure altruism occurs when we experience
empathy: the ability to experience events and emotions like another person
Empathy-altruism hypothesis: the idea that when we feel empathy we will help no matter of personal gains, to relieve
distress; if we do not feel empathy, we rely on social exchange (cost vs reward/approval with helping)
-Toi and Batson: a tape about a student plays who is disabled and struggling to keep up with coursework, asked to
share notes and meet with her- those who were asked to empathize showed higher empathy than those asked to be
objective. They also manipulated cost (ie seeing her every week or rare); in both cost conditions, high-empathy
conditions agreed to help. In the low empathy condition more agreed to help if they thought they’d have to see her in
class- guilt is high cost, so social exchange dictates helping.
Personal determinants of prosocial behaviour
-no specific altruism gene, nor do high personality scores of altruism indicate action will be taken
-factors include gender and mood ; in western culture being male involves chivalry and heroic whereas females role is
one of caring; men more likely help when bravery is needed, but women more likely to help long-term/commitment
-transitory emotion state: Isen and Leven found that in malls people who had found a coin were more likely to aid
someone who dropped something “feel good do good” takes many forms such as donating $/blood to helping others
a)when we are in a good mood we see others in a better light b)being good Samaritans prolongs good mood
c)not helping when we know we should creates guilt (negative feeling) d)good moods increase our focus on self and our
values are more likely to be expressed
sadness can also increase helping when it makes us feel better (negative state relief theory)
or reduces guilt; Harris found church-goers are more likely to donate to charity before vs.
after confession (since they already released their guilt)
Situational factors:
-Baron found people are more likely to be helpful in a pleasant vs neutral smelling environment
-if we fail to note the emergency, we obviously fail to help (ie distracted)
-Darley and Batson found we are less likely to help if we are in a hurry (seminary students passing an ill man)
-we must interpret the event as an emergency: role of pluralistic ignorance: we base our reaction on others reactions
-Latane and Darley smoke experiment; the more participants in the room, the less likely to respond (75% responded
when alone within six minutes)
-assuming responsibility: the more people present, the less likely we are to respond due to diffusion of responsibility
-Latane and Darley seizure experiment: if participant thought others could hear the seizure, they were less likely to react
Bystander effect: the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that anyone will help
Each person falsely assumes that someone else will help
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
-knowing how to help: if we don’t know what form of help to give, we are unable to help
-deciding to implement help: it can be embarrassing to intervene if unknowledgeable or unsure of situation
-Edwards study: nearly everyone returned a dropped purse, but few would pick up the tampons; likewise Macdonald
found people would return mittens but not condoms
Increasing helping
-cultivate helpful behaviour from a young age using rewards such as praise and hugs, compliments; children who perceive
themselves as altruistic are more likely to act in the future (same with adults)
-parents must model prosocial behaviour, as should teachers and relatives
-simply being aware to bystander effct and emergency assessment makes you more likely to help (Vasser college; girl took
social psychology and stepped in to help)
Aggression: intentional acts aimed at causing physical or psychological pain
-different from being assertive which has no intention of harming others
-Lore suggests that aggression has been maintained as a trait because it has survival value; likewise the patterns are
flexible because inhibition is also beneficial
-Archer and McDaniel found violence differs across cultures (high violence in New Zealnd, USA, low in Korea)
Situational influences:
-certain situations are conducive to violence even with non-violent individuals
-roots in social learning: the idea that we learn social behaviours such as aggression by observation and imitation
-those who are most aggressive in hockey receive higher scores and rank better (reward); likewise with Bandura’s Bobo
doll- child imitated aggressive or non-aggressive actions (ie the role of tv programs as a cumulative factor in aggression)
-Josephson had boys watch arousing films, either violent or non-violent, then had them play hockey. Boys who had
watched the aggressive film were more violent
Role of film: lowers inhibition (behaviour deemed acceptable), increases imitation and primes for aggressive feelings
(anger), creates desensitization to violence over time
-Anderson found that violent video games produce violent behaviour (ie Columbine shooting)
-violent pornography increases sexual violence (women in assault centres more likely to report husband watching porn)
-exposure to violent pornography creates greater acceptance towards sexual violence toward women (Malamuth and
Check) found that viewing sexual violence days before a survey created more acceptance of it amidst males
-watching rape vs. lovemaking makes men more likely to have violent sexual fantasies, decreases sympathy for women
-men who had seen violent erotic tapes were more likely to administer shocks to women, vs a non violent film;also more
likely to administer to women than men
-exposure to porn creates an increased risk for sexual deviance, offenses, victim blaming and difficulty with intimacy
Frustration aggression theory: frustration (prevention of obtaining a goal) will increase the probability of an aggressive
response; Barker showed that frustrating children by withholding toys leads to more aggressive play
-frustration does not always produce aggressive behaviour, requires other conducive factors (ie the persons size and
ability to retaliate may determine the reaction
Provocation and reciprocation:
-Baron proved that criticising others harshly results in higher rates of retaliation if possible; but people do not always
reciprocate aggression such as when we believe the act was unintentional (accidental) or if we were aware of mitigating
factors (ie the person is divorcing)
Alcohol lowers inhibitions, inclu. Against violence
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
-
The greater the consumption the greater the risk; includes marital violence, familial violence, respond more
violently to provocation (McGill study administered stronger shocks)
Social exclusion: Twenge proved that rejection results in more aggression towards the rejectors; role in school shooting
Aggressive stimulus: an object associated with violence (ie gun) can increase aggression when present
-Berkowitz found that with a gun present, participants who were angry were more likely to deliver shocks (intensity)
-Vancouver and Seattle are similar in climate, demographics, etc. yet Seattle has a much higher violence/ murder rates,
whereas Vancouver has strict restrictions on owning weapons
Homicide rates are correlated with the availability of handguns
Gender: men are more likely to be aggressive, but gap closes when both are provoked
-men are more physically aggressive while women tend to be verbally aggressive (covert aggression)
-children are equally verbally aggressive between genders
-male aggression tends to be directed at other men, and is likely to occur in a public place (ie bar) while women are more
aggressive to romantic partners
-men more likely to be aggressive with alcohol, but women more likely to be physically aggressive with partner than men
(men just more likely to cause physical harm due to strength); women more likely to leave a negative emotional impact
via violence than men
Reducing aggression
-severe punishment (specifically aggressive) tends to not diminish the desire to be aggressive again; in contrast mild
punishment (reprimand) halts the behaviour for long enough to diminish the attractiveness of the option
-Olweus reduces bullying by swift intervention by adults; train children to develop a distaste for violence and aggression
-in adults, consistency and certainty of punishment is more deterrent than severe punishment (Police department
showed reduced rates of domestic and family violence with arrest and detainment for 24 hours, rather than just
counselling);Ontario courts reduce familial violence with separate courts and immediate consequences
-catharsis: the notion that performing an aggressive act or watching others do so relieves built up aggressive energy and
likelihood of further aggression; Freud believed aggressive energy would explode eventually or manifest as mental illness
Bushman study: venting anger actually increases anger (participants who led the pro-catharsis article responded
more aggressively to insult); similar with aggressive sports, lead to further aggression
-stifling anger can lead to physical/mental illness; express anger in a non-punitive way
-Davitz experiment: students taught constructive ways to interact played more appropriately after being frustrated than
those who were encouraged to be aggressive and competitive
-apology: students liked an assistant better who acknowledged his mistakes and apologized versus no apology; less
aggressive
-non-aggressive behaviour modeling results in less aggressive behaviour in children
Chapter 10 Prejudice
-minority groups report more discrimination; the highest rates among people who are in multiple minority groups
-ie in Canada black immigrants face more discrimination than whites, as well as females and muslims
-even within group prejudice: Torontonians as self-centered, French as stuck-up
-the more similar we are to a group the more favourably we view them and associate with them
Modern prejudice: because of promotion of tolerance, we outwardly act unprejudiced whil inwardly maintaining it
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
-Modern Racism scale measures subtle racism ie “minorities are demanding about rights”
-people who exhibit modern racism will express it when safe or in subtle ways
-Tougas developed the neo-sexism scale to assess subtle sexist attitudes
-prejudice also occurs in unconscious (automatic processing)- Implicit Association Test assesses attitudes towards
groups or self, particularly focusing on stereotypes
-Greenwald study: associating black names with pleasant words takes longer than white names with pleasant
words
Prejudice vs stereotypes
-prejudice: a negative attitude toward a distinguishable group of people based solely on their membership to that
group
-lIppmann defined stereotypes: a generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are
assigned to most members of the group, regardless of actual variation
-we categorize what is normative within our culture (like a schema)
-allport defined stereotyping as the law of least effort; we take shortcuts to sort people into groups (aid
understanding)
-the traits we are mostly likely to discuss are those of the group, whether it be good or bad (Schellman study), and
these traits form the subsequent stereotypes; generally large groups get good stereotypes while minorities get
bad ; once negative components become part of a stereotype they are more likely to remain than positive ones
-prejudice may have evolutionary roots (shy away from unfamiliarity) to express hostility to out group; on the other
hand we are above animals (morality, kindness) and prejudice could come from others/the media
Discrimination: the action of prejudice
Discrimination : unjustified/negative action towards a group member, simply because they belong to that group
-Page study found that gay and lesbians, and AIDS people more likely to be told there are no vacancies when there
are
Social cognition:
-information which is consistent with schemas in place will be rehearsed more often and better remembered
-Kunda study: we tend to associate certain jobs with personality characteristics and actions
-schemas resist change even in the face of contradicting evidence and we dismiss evidence that shows otherwise
-Ickes study: students associated their former belief of someone (friendly/unfriendly) and interpreted the
behaviour according to it, regardless (ie if told unfriendly, they interpret friendly behaviour as fake/superficial)
Social categorization: the first step to prejudice is creating groups (us and them) based on characteristics
-occurs due to social cognition, trying to organize information; rarely a neutral process and this is what creates
issue
--Tajfel social identity theory: people are either ingroup (with ourself) or out-group (with others/different); and we
evaluate in-group members more positively (assign best rating to our own ethnic group)
-Landonce hockey team study: fans of the home team rate the opposite team as more aggressive, arrogant, etc.
(outgroups are given negative traits, which increase over time “as the game goes on”)
Favouritism occurs even with minimal differences (ie we favour people on our “heads” team over the “tails team
even amidst strangers); we will even take 2 over 3$ as long as the other group doesn’t get more
-Belonging to a group gives us : a social identity and sense of belonging, and thus contributes to self-esteem
-we boost our own group by associating positive qualities with it
-out of group homogeneity: the perception that everyone in the out group are more homogenous to each other
versus the in-group; Jones study of Princeton found that we cast an out of groups choice onto his fellow members
at a higher rate (see it as predictive) than within our own group
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
Stereotypes can be turned on and off and require activation; Greenberg had students watch a debate between
white and black student; when a racist remark was planted, the viewer would rate the black as lower in skill.
Likewise when a black in Nisbett’s study took one negative action, it triggered reaction to all blacks
Devine theory of cognitive processing: two steps to cognitive processing (automatic and controlled); the automatic
brings up information and stereotypes but controlled processing can refute it
-motivational factor: do we benefit personally from using the stereotype (ie restore self confidence)- activation
We can also inhibit stereotypes when it serves us
-Kunda predicted that people who received negative feedback from a black employer would activate their
stereotypes, while those who received positive feedback would inhibit them, resulting in higher or lower racial
word completion
-more likely to rate female professors as incompetent with lower grades vs. higher grades
Vorauer and meta-stereotypes: a person’s beliefs regarding the stereotype that out-group members hold against
them
-white students perceive that native students see them as selfish, privileged, etc. which leads to negative
interactions
-participants beliefs about meta-stereotypes predicted their behaviour more than their own stereotypes of natives
-Esses and Zanna advocate an affective component to stereotypes, not just cognitive
-prejudice also involves our belief that certain groups promote or hinder our values, and our experiences with that
group
-emotion (affect) plays the greatest role when compared with behaviour, symbolic beliefs and stereotypes
-prejudice is best predicted by emotion in low prejudice groups (ie Canadians, First Nations) and best predicted by
symbolic beliefs (promote or hinder values) amidst high prejudice groups (homosexuals and Pakistanis)
-stereotypes didn’t predict prejudice better than affect, symbolic beliefs and behaviour
-emotion predicted prejudice going both ways for white and native Canadians (feelings of anxiety, threat)
-participants in a bad mood described out-groups more negatively than a good mood person
Effects of prejudice/stereotyping
-targets of prejudice come to despise their own group by internalizing prejudice at a young age (doll study
attributed better characteristics to a white doll or playmate than a black or native one)
-self-fulfilling prophecy: people have an expectation of what a person is like which influences how the act towards
the person, which in turn causes that person to behave consistent to the expectations
Zanna and Cooper study found that when blacks are interviewed by whites, the
interview is shorter and rated as less competent (increase chair distance, uncomfortable tension)
-self-blaming attributions for discrimination: members of group report discrimination against the group, but not
against themselves; Ruggiero and Taylor proposed that we tend to self-blame for failure, not attribute it to
discrimination
School study: even when told there was a 75% chance they were discriminated against women blamed their F on
themselves as frequently as the 25% chance of discrimination group; likewise with Asian and blacks- believed they
had been discriminated against only when there was a 100% chance
-Crocker and Major found the opposite, we are hypervigilant of discrimination and blame it for failure to minimize
personal shortcomings; blame on prejudice or self clearly depends on motivational and situational factors (ie less
likely to blame friend for discriminating than a prof. who marks hard)
-stereotype threat: the apprehension experienced by minority groups that they might behave in a way that
confirms the cultural stereotype; Aronson found that blacks fear confirming sterotype of inferiority in academics- in
turn interfering with their performance (white students performed equally well whether they thought they were
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|47173192
being diagnosed or not, while blacks performed less well when they thought they were being diagnosed [GREintelligence test]
Same applies to gender: when led to believe women were inferior at math, they did more poorly; women scored
lower when led to believe they should, versus the section comparing Canadian and American students
-stereotype threat not likely to occur if the task is easy or doesn’t hold value to the participant
Reducing prejudice
-by learning not to hate: Eliot divided her class by eye colour, giving privileges to blue eyed children; within hours,
the “superior” kids picked on the minority; when the roles were reversed the next day the old minority exacted
revenge
-by revising stereotypes using the bookkeeping, conversion or subtyping model
Book keeping model: information inconsistent with the stereotype is presented leading to a modification in the
stereotype; led to gradual belief modification through many examples
Conversion model: information inconsistent with stereotype leads to a radical change in stereotype; didn’t work,
one fact wasn’t enough to change the stereotype
Subtyping model: information inconsistent with the stereotype creates a new sub-stereotype to accommodate the
new information without changing the original stereotype; created a sub-type to keep the old stereotype intact,
requires more presentations of disconfirming information to change original view
-Allport contact hypothesis: prejudice can be reduced by contact between majority and minority members of
equal status and when pursuing common goals
-mutual interdependence: both groups need each other in order to accomplish a common goal
-also requires a common goal, otherwise there is no reason to cooperate
-equal status: otherwise interactions will follow the stereotypes of dominant and submissive
-informal setting with multiple members: interaction one-to one; force mixing otherwise segregation will remain;
in addition, must be able to meet more than one out-group member otherwise they will just be deemed an
exception to the stereotype
-social norms must promote equality: create a norm of tolerance
Cooperation (Jigsaw classrooms): a classroom setting designed to reduce prejudice using small groups; children
depend on others in the group to do well and learn (Aronson)
-children build respect; jigsaw students show less prejudice, both to in and out groups
-better objective exam performance and increased self-esteem, greater empathy and showed evidence of racial
integration in playground play
Downloaded by Ay?e Özdemir (ayseozdemiir0@gmail.com)