Psych Exam 4- Part 1

How do other influence us?

conformity, compliance, obedience, group influences

conformity

a change in behavior, belief, or both to conform to a group norm as a result of real or imagined group pressure

2 studys for conformity

sherif and asch study

sherif study

put in completely dark room and asked to estimate the distance the light moved, light never moved, appeared to move cuz no frame of reference and eyes spontaneously move, when 1 person in room- distance varied, when 2 people- revised estimates until simil

asch study

demonstrated the degree to which an individual's own opinions are influenced by those of a majority group. 1 card with standard line and other card with 3 comparison lines

2 types of influence for conformity

informational and normative

informational influence

stems from our desire to be correct in situations in which the correct action or judgement is uncertain and we need information (sherif study)

normative influence

stems from our desire to gain the approval and to avoid the disapproval of other people (asch study)

compliance

acting in accordance to a direct request from another person or group

4 types of compliance

foot-in-the-door, door-in-the-face, low-ball, thats-not-all

foot-in-the-door

start small and build on that, compliance to a large request is gained by prefacing it with a very small, almost mindless request

door-in-the-face

the opposite of foot in door, start with a large unreasonable request, follow with a more reasonable smaller request

low-balling

compliance to a costly request by first getting compliance to an attractive, less costly request. then go back on the less costly request. works cuz we want to remain consistent in our actions

thats-not-all

a second "better" request is made before an individual is given a chance to respond to a first request. more likely to comply to a request after a build-up

obedience study

milgram's study

Milgram's Study

1960s. how far people would go to obey an authority figure when it violated their ethical principles

4 types of group influences

social loafing, social facilitation, deindividuation, bystander effect

social loafing

occurs when people are pooling their efforts to achieve a common goal, do not feel individual accountable, mainly due to the diffusion of responsibility

diffusion of responsibility

responsibility for a task is spread across all members of the group so individual accountability is lessened

deindividuation

loss of self-awareness and self-restraint in a group situation that allows for anonymity. people to feel less restrained due to the lack of responsibility, so they may forget moral values and act spontaneously without thinking

bystander effect

probability of an individual helping in an emergency is greater when there is only one bystander than when there are many bystanders

social facilitation

improvement in performance in the presence of others, works for easy tasks or tasks you know well, occurs because the presence of others increases psychological arousal (Yerkes-Dodson Law)

cognitive dissonance

dissonance occurs when our behavior contradicts our attitudes- causes anxiety and tension. we are motivated to reduce the dissonance

how to change dissonance

change behaviors or attitudes, rationalize the discrepancies

social norms

expected standards of conducts, governs what behavior is appropriate, governs how to respond to inappropriate behavior

stereotypes

summary impression of a group of people in which all members of the group are viewed as sharing a common trait or traits, can be positive/negative/neutral

prejudice

attitude or response to someone because they belong to a certain group, can serve psychological, social, or economic functions, occurs at personal level (racism at structural level)

self-fulfilling prophecy

our expectations of a person elicit behavior from the person that confirms our expectations. stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination can lead to this

attribution theory

attributions are our explanations for events/behaviors. often arrive at inaccurate explanations (even when explaining our own behavior). we prefer to think things happen for a reason

make attributions for behavior that are:

personal and situational

personal attributions

explaining behavior in terms of a person's disposition/personal characteristics

situational attribution

explaining behavior in terms of a person's circumstances/situation/environment

fundamental attribution error

when observing others we overestimate personal dispositional influences, underestimate external situational influences upon others behavior

fundamental attribution error- Why?

situational pressures may not be readily apparent to observer, attributing behaviors of others to dispositional factors is effortless and automatic

defensive attribution

to explain calamities and setbacks, more reassuring to blame victims for their misfortune, then we feel less likely to be victimized

just world hypothesis

violent act can be senseless, blaming the victim restores meaning, "we live in a just world...I am less vulnerable