Norms



|Norms |-established social rules | | |

| |Roles |-ascribed social positions in groups and defined behavior expectations | |

| |Social Dilemma/ Social |-individuals behave in ways that are unproductive simply because they fear others | |

| |trap |might do so | |

| | |-tragedy of the commons | |

| | |-even when one’s long-term self-interest is best supported by cooperation, people | |

| | |often end up competing, to the detriment of all | |

| |Normative Social Pressure|-going along with the group, even if you do not agree with their decisions because| |

| | |you desire to gain social approval | |

| |Obedience |-refers to doing something because someone, often an authority figure, told you to| |

| | |do so, whether you like it or not | |

| | |-harsher than compliance | |

| |Deindividuation |-term to account for some individual behaviors in group settings | |

| | |-describes loss of identity and personal responsibility in a crowd | |

| | |-helps explain why an otherwise kind hearted law abiding person commits a theft | |

| | |during a riot | |

| |Social Facilitation |-if you are performing a task that you know well and is one in which you have had | |

| | |success, the audience tends to aid your performance | |

| |Social Loafing |-reduced effort group members put into a task as a result of the size of the group|-ex: lifting a large box takes great effort but if you are 1 of 4 |

| | | |people lifting, you may put in less effort that your share in the |

| | | |hope that other members of the group will not realize you are |

| | | |slacking off |

| |Group Polarization Effect|-exaggeration of initial attitudes |-ex: people with negative racial attitudes in a group, those who |

| | |-occurs when a judgment or decision of a group is more extreme than what |started off with high prejudice often end up with an even higher |

| | |individual members of the group would have reached on their own |prejudice |

| |Risky – Shift Phenomenon |-once thought that groups tended to make more dangerous decisions in general than | |

| | |the individual members would have | |

| | |-research suggests it is more accurate to say that the group simply exaggerates | |

| | |the predispositions of the individuals | |

| |Groupthink |-when members of a group are driven to reach unanimous decisions, don’t evaluate | |

| | |repercussions of decisions | |

| | |-groups making decisions isolated and homogeneous, lack of impartial leadership, | |

| | |high level of pressure for decision to be made | |

| | |- do not think they can make a mistake | |

| | |-mind guard may criticize members of group who do not agree | |

| |Attribution Theory |-applied to understand political situation |ex: political leaders can make decisions that in retrospect seem |

| | |-refers to how people assign responsibility for certain decisions and outcomes |so bad |

| | |-proposed by Fritz Heider | |

| |dispositional vs. |-dispositional: assumes that the cause of a behavior or outcome is internal |D ex: lead role of a play was given to someone else, unsuccessful |

| |situational attributions |-situational: assigns the cause of a behavior or outcome to the environment or |actor would say “I wasn’t very good for the part” |

| | |external conditions-people are likely to make |S ex: actor would blame rejection on specific system of casting |

| |Fundamental Attribution |-dispositional attributions when judging others and situational attributions when | |

| |Error |judging themselves | |

| | |-particularly true for negative outcomes | |

| |Primacy Effect |-the tendency to remember initial information | |

| | |-in the memorization of a list of words, the primacy effect is evidenced by better| |

| | |recall of the words early in the list | |

| |cognitive-dissonance |-occurs when attitudes and behaviors contradict each other |-ex: law-abiding citizens speed: people adjust their attitude and |

| |theory (Festinger) |-tension is not pleasant, people change in order to achieve cognitive consistency |continue their behavior |

| | |-Festinger came to conclusion that people are likely to alter their attitude to | |

| | |fit their behavior | |

| |“foot in the door” |-technique is based on methods sometimes employed in the past by door-to-door |-ex: if you want to make a big commission by selling expensive |

| |technique |salespeople, who operate on the assumption that if they could just “get their foot|guitars you would show guitars of lesser value, while encouraging |

| | |in the door” their chance of sales success was high |shopper to commit to idea of buying from you, invite shopper to |

| | | |try guitars out and then move on to the more expensive model |

| |“door in the face” |-involves starting big and then “settling” |-ex: to sell most expensive guitar possible you show a custom made|

| |technique | |model w/ a price affordable only to wealthy buyers, after |

| | | |rejecting the purchase coming down to a lower price is easier for |

| | | |the potential buyer |

| |High Ball Technique |-asking for something much higher than someone expects, and then agreeing when | |

| | |they accept a lower offer | |

| |Illusory Correlation |-the appearance of a correlation that doesn’t actually exist | |

| | |-two variables only appear to offset each other | |

| |In-group/Out-group Bias |-humans tend to favor the groups in which they belong | |

| | |-“we” are the in group, “they” are the out group | |

| | |-“we” share common values and attitudes, “they” are diff from us | |

| | |-members of out-group are not seen as being different from each other (out-group | |

| | |homogeneity bias, stereotyping) | |

| | |-easy to blame those you deem inferior for all wrongs | |

| |Scapegoat Theory |-allows us to explain the misfortunes others suffer as being the result of some | |

| | |behavior of theirs | |

| |Just World Hypothesis |-world is an orderly place and people can avoid dangers placing one in jeopardy | |

| |Types of Aggression |-hostile aggression: emotional and impulsive, typically induced by pain or stress | |

| | |-instrumental aggression: aggression committed to gain something of value | |

| |Frustration – Aggression |-the principle that frustration – the blocking of an attempt to achieve some goal | |

| |Hypothesis |– creates anger, which can generate aggression | |

| |Prisoner Game |-zero-sum game analyzing human cooperation and trust | |

| |Halo Effect |-refers to the error by which we generalize a high self-evaluation from one domain| |

| | |to another | |

| | |-applies to evaluations of others | |

| |Attraction |-social psychology indicates that keys to attraction are similarity and physical | |

| | |proximity | |

| | |-“opposites attract” is not a useful generalization | |

| |Mere- Exposure Effect |-repetition is an effective technique for achieving persuasion, which is the same | |

| | |reason why advertisements run so frequently | |

| | |-based on the idea that we have more positive feelings about things to which we | |

| | |are frequently exposed | |

| |Altruism |-helping behavior | |

| | |-helps reduce tendency toward bystander effect | |

| |Bystander Effect |-indifference when people see or hear what is happening but nobody intervenes ; | |

| | |occurs as a result of diffusion of responsibility | |

| |Zimbardo’s Prison |-1970’s student volunteers play roles in “prison” at Stanford University; | |

| |Experiment |dynamics of incarceration and prison psychology | |

| | |-volunteers randomly assigned as guards and prisoners in 2 week role play of | |

| | |prison life | |

| | |-guards conformed to “expected” role: punish, humiliate, and make life miserable | |

| | |for prisoners | |

| | |-contributed to today’s ethical guidelines in psychological research | |

| |Milgram’s Obedience Study |-studied obedience | |

| | |-participants believed job to administer shocks of increasing intensity to another| |

| | |participant if participant performed poorly on learning task | |

| | |-other participant was a confederate, intentionally performing badly: real | |

| | |participant obliged to administer shock | |

| | |-confederate acted as if shocks painful, pleading participant to stop (no shocks | |

| | |actually given) | |

| | |-participant instructed by experimenter to continue shocks | |

| | |-65% delivered full range of shock | |

| | |-contributed to today’s ethical guidelines in psychological research | |

| |Kitty Genovese |-a woman murdered in her apartment complex | |

| |(Latane & Darley study of |-40 neighbors saw/heard what was happening but no one intervened or called police | |

| |diffusion of |- supports bystander effect, diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance | |

| |responsiblity) | | |

| |Asch’s Conformity Study |-studied nature of conformity | |

| | |-participants thought they were being evaluated on their perceptual judgments: | |

| | |shown stimuli (lines of diff lengths), report which of lines matched a standard | |

| | |line in length, correct answers obvious | |

| | |-confederates purposely respond incorrectly | |

| | |-75% of subjects went to wrong answer at least once because of others; knew | |

| | |answers they gave were wrong | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download