Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition) a summary
- 3220 reads
Social psychology
Chapter 6
Social identity
Being a member of a group influences many of our thoughts, feelings and actions.
Some group memberships are so important that they become a basic apart of our view of ourselves.
Self-categorization: the process of seeing oneself as a member of a social group.
Flexible and can readily shift depending on social context.
Social identity: those aspects of the self-concept that derive from an individual’s knowledge and feelings about the group membership he or she shares with others.
Extends the self out beyond the skin to include other members of our groups.
Most group memberships are stable en enduring.
Learning about our groups
People learn about the groups to which they belong in the same ways that they learn the characteristics of other groups: by observing other group members or from the culture.
What we and other group members do often becomes the basis for group stereotypes.
But what we do is strongly influenced by our roles.
Performing a role based on membership in some group can shape our future behaviors and, ultimately, our self-knowledge.
Feeling like a group member
Knowledge about group membership may be activated by direct reminders, such as:
Group membership is significant in some cultures and for some individuals, who tend to see the world in terms of that group membership.
Direct reminders of membership
The process is often subtle.
Circumstances remind us of our similarities with others, and this activates group membership.
The mere presence of other in-group members can be a potent reminder.
When group similarities are highlighted membership and all it entails becomes even more accessible.
This is powerful enough to overcome alternative categorizations that might be important in other circumstances.
Presence of out-group members
The presence of even a single out-group member is enough to increase our sense of in-group membership.
Being a minority
People are more likely to think of themselves in terms of their membership in smaller groups than in larger groups. Especially when they are sole representatives of their group in a situation.
Conflict or rivalry
The most potent factor that brings group membership to mind is ongoing conflict or rivalry between groups.
The importance of conflict also means that people identify more strongly with groups that they learn are targets of discrimination from the society at large.
‘I’ becomes ‘we’: social categorization and the self
Activated knowledge about a group membership has multiple effect on people’s self-concept and self-esteem.
Relatively small groups typically have the greatest effects.
Seeing oneself as a group members
Seeing oneself as a group member means that the group’s typical characteristics become norms or standards for one’s own behavior.
People tend to think and act in group-typical ways.
Gender group norms are usually highly valued, so acting in accordance with those norms tends to make people feel good about themselves.
Liking ourselves: social identity and self-esteem
Our groups are part of ourselves.
We play up group membership that makes us feel good about ourselves.
BIRG: a way of boosting self-esteem by identifying oneself with the accomplishment or good qualities of fellow in-group members.
Particularly when self-esteem is threatened.
Social identity and emotions
Group memberships lead us to experience emotions or behalf of our groups, as well as affecting our self-esteem.
People experience anger, fear, pride, guilt or other emotions in response to events that affect their groups because identification with a group makes the group part of the self, giving the group emotional significance.
These emotional reactions are not just a form of empathy. They appear to be truly an integral part of group membership.
Balancing individuality and connectedness
Group membership can simultaneously satisfy both. Perceiving the differences between our group and other groups provides feeling of being unique and special. Seeing the similarity among members withing our group can help us feel connected and similar.
The best balance for most people most of the time involves membership in relatively small groups.
Others become ‘we’: social categorization and the in-group
When group membership is highly accessible, people see other in-group members as similar in their central group-linked characteristics. However, extensive personal interaction (when group membership is not activated) also provides knowledge about their unique and diverse personal characteristics. People like fellow in-group members and tend to treat in fair, humane, and altruistic ways, seeing the other members as similar to themselves in their goals and interests.
Perceiving fellow in-group members
when group membership is accessible, we think mostly about the features we believe we share with the group.
We also manage to learn quite a lot about other in-group members, the things that make them unique as individuals. This awareness develops as we interact with other members in a variety o contexts and situations.
Knowing about others’ unique characteristics helps us to find our own place in the group.
Liking in-group members: to be us is to be lovable
Because they share our attributes, fellow in-group members become part of ‘me and mine’, and so we like then, usually much more than we like out-group members.
The in-group bias is stronger when the groups are real and meaningful.
The very concept ‘we’ seems to have positive connotations, as compared to the concept ‘they’.
The label ‘we’ automatically activates positive associations that faciliate the recognition of other positive words.
Attraction in group situations seems to depend merely on group membership.
Treating the in-group right: justice and altruism
We will treat in-group as we ourselves would like to be treated.
Groups prosper when their members are willing to subordinate personal interests to the group and to help other members in times of need.
When group memberships are uppermost in people’s minds, they often act in these altruistic was, showing more concern for treating others fairly than for getting the largest share of rewards.
When people see the world through the lens of their group memberships, what is best for the group blurs together with what is best of the individual.
Others become ‘they’: social categorization and the out-group
People see out-groups as uniform and homogeneous. People also dislike, devalue and discriminate against out-group members, depending on the extent to which they are seen as threatening to the in-group. When the out-group is simply different, it elicits mild dislike.
When the out-group is seen as outdoing the in-group, this more serious threat results in resentment, dislike and over discrimination.
Out-groups are seen as severe threats to the in-group elicit murderous hatred, severe discrimination, aggression or moral exclusion.
Categorization into an out-group has a range of negative consequences.
Perceiving the out-group as homogeneous: they’re all alike
Out-group homogeneity effect: the tendency to see the out-group as relatively more homogeneous and less diverse than the in-group.
Explanations:
Effects of mere categorization: minimal groups
We think different about in-group versus out-group members, even when the groups are not real of meaningful.
Minimal intergroup situation: a research situation in which people are categorized, on an arbitrary or trivial basis, into groups that have no history, no conflicts of interests, and no stereotypes.
Simple categorization into groups seems to be sufficient reason for people to dispense valued rewards in ways that favor in-group members over those who are ‘different’.
Discrimination and social identity
Expectation of rewards is not the driving force behind intergroup discrimination.
Group members want to make their group better, stronger, and more lovable in any way available to them.
Social identity theory: the theory that people’s motivation to derive self-esteem from their group membership is one driving force behind in-group bias.
Effects of perceived mild threat
Group membership can serve to enhance self-esteem.
People can increase self-esteem by discriminating against out-groups. People are particularly likely to choose this tactic when their self-esteem is threatened.
When higher-status groups are threatened, they tend to discriminate on dimensions that are centrally relevant to the group distinction.
Lower-status groups show more discrimination to other dimensions that are less directly relevant to status.
Unequal status amplifies intergroup discrimination.
Effects on perceived extreme threat: moral exclusion and hate crimes
When prejudice turns from dislike to extreme hatred, it usually reflects the perception that what ‘they’ stand for threatens what ‘we’ stand for.
When people perceive such extreme threat, they usually response in two interrelated ways:
In these situations, out-groups may also be viewed as fundamentally inferior to the in-group.
Moral exclusion: viewing out-groups as subhuman and outside the domain in which the rules of morality apply.
People’s reactions to out-groups usually stop short of virulent hatred, moral exclusion, and violent hate crimes.
Though they range from mild to intense, they are always negative.
Stigmatized: negatively evaluated by others.
We are stigmatized: effects on what we do and how we feel
Negative stereotypes about the abilities of a group’s members can become self-fulfilling actually harming the member’s performance. Belonging to a devalued group also poses a threat to self-esteem.
Effects on performance
Stereotype threat: the fear of conforming other’s negative stereotype of your group
Can act as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Harms performance even for members of generally high-status and non stigmatized groups.
Accounts:
Worries about the impact of failure.
Interventions
Effects of self-esteem
Belonging to a socially devalued group can have effects on self-esteem that are more subtle, but perhaps ultimately even more severe.
Defending individual self-esteem
Belonging to a group that is disliked and discriminated against by others can have a major impact on the individual. But this experience does not inevitably lead to lowered self-esteem, because people can attribute negative reactions to others’ prejudice or compare themselves to fellow in-group members.
Using attributions to advantage
Attributing negative outcomes to others’ prejudice against one’s group instead of to one’s personal failings can protect self-esteem against the negative psychological effects of failure.
But it carries costs
Making the most of intragroup comparisons
Social comparisons are an important source of self-evaluation.
Intragroup comparison boosts self-esteem by showing we are better of than some others and remind us of in-group members who are doing particularly well, even if they are not.
Individual mobility: escaping negative group membership
If self-protective strategies are insufficient, people can attempt to escape from membership in a negatively regarded group.
They can psychologically dis-identify with the group.
Or disassociate.
Individual mobility: the strategy of individual escape, either physical or psychological, form a stigmatized group.
Disidentification: putting the group at a psychological distance
Individual mobility can be purely psychological, as when people disidentify, or minimize their personal connections to the group.
Dissociation: putting the group at a physical distance
Dissaociating involves actual escape from a disadvantaged group or concealment of group membership.
Can be successful.
Social creativity: redefining group membership as positive
Sometimes group members attempt to change society’s evaluation of their in-group, through redefining group characteristics in positive terms.
Social creativity: the strategy of introducing and emphasizing new dimensions of social comparison, on which a negatively regarded group can see itself as superiod.
Social change: changing the intergroup context
Group members may engage in direct intergroup conflict or struggle to achieve equitable treatment. Strategies may reduce prejudice do not necessarily lead to better objective outcomes for groups, and strategies that improve outcomes often increase prejudice.
Social change: the strategy of improving the overall societal situation of a stigmatized group.
Social competition
Social competition: the strategy of directly seeking to change the conditions that disadvantage the in-group.
A strategy that leads to in-group bias.
Social competition strategies are likely to provoke a backlash from powerful groups.
Social competition or prejudice reduction: mutually exclusive goals?
Strategies that can reduce prejudice toward groups often undermine desires for social competition, and conversely engagement in social competition often increases group dislike.
Positive contact between groups can also smooth over perceptions of group inequality.
One goal, many strategies
Those who most strongly identify with a group and see group boundaries as fixed tend to choose social change rather than individual mobility strategies. But, no single approach is always best for dealing with a negatively evaluated group membership, just as no single coping strategy is uniformly the best to handle threats to the individual self.
Factors:
Social psychology
Chapter 1
What is social psychology?
Social psychology: the scientific study of the effects of social and cognitive processes on the way individuals perceive, influence and relate to others.
The scientific study
Social psychologist gather knowledge systematically by means of scientific methods. These methods help to produce knowledge that is less subject to the biases and distortions that often characterize common-sense knowledge.
The effects of social and cognitive processes
The presence of other people, the knowledge and opinions they pass on to us, and our feelings about the groups to which we belong all deeply influence us through social processes, whether we are with other people or alone. Our perceptions, memories, emotions, and motives also exert a pervasive influence on us through cognitive processes. Effects of social and cognitive processes are not separate but inextricably intertwined.
Social processes: the ways in which input from the people and groups around us affect our thoughts, feelings and actions.
Affect us even when others are not physically present.
The processes that affect us when others are present depend on how we interpret those others and their actions.
Cognitive processes: the ways in which our memories, perceptions, thoughts, emotions, and motives influence our understanding of the world and guide our actions.
The way individuals perceive, influence and relate to others
Social psychology focuses on the effects of social and cognitive processes on the way individuals perceive, influence and relate to others. Understanding these processes can help us comprehend why people act the way they do and may also help solve important social problems.
Social psychology seeks and understanding of the reasons people act the way they do in social situations.
Social psychology is a product of its past.
Social psychology becomes an empirical science
Soon after the emergence of scientific psychology in the late 19th century, researchers began considering questions about social influences on human thought and action.
Social psychology splits from general psychology over what causes behavior
Throughout much of the 20th century, North American psychology was dominated by behaviorism, but social psychologists maintained an emphasis on the important effects of thoughts and feelings on behavior.
The rise of Nazism shapes the development of social psychology
In the 1930s and 1940s, many European social psychologists fled to North America, where they had a major influence on the field’s direction. Significant
.....read moreSocial psychology
Chapter 3
Perceiving individuals
Our knowledge about people’s characteristics and the ways they are related to one another is one type of mental representation.
Our stored knowledge influences virtually all of our social beliefs and behaviors.
Impressions guide our actions in ways that meet our needs for both concrete rewards and connectedness to other people.
The raw materials of first impressions
Perceptions of other people begin with visible cues including:
Familiarity affects impressions, leading to increased liking.
Cues that stand out and attract attention in the particular context in which they occur are particularly influential.
Impressions from physical appearance
Physical appearance influences our impressions of other people.
The way people look is usually our first our only cue to what they are like.
Physical beauty, particularly a beautiful face, calls up a variety of positive expectations.
We expect highly attractive people to be more interesting, warm, outgoing and socially skilled.
People from different cultures generally agree about who is physically attractive and about the traits attractiveness conveys.
Baby-faced males were viewed as more naive, honest, kind and warm.
Impressions from nonverbal communication
Nonverbal communication influences whether we like people, how we think they are feeling, and what we think they are like.
In general, we like people who express their feelings nonverbally more than less expressive individuals.
Specific nonverbal cues affect liking, even when we’re not aware of them.
Body language offers a special insight into people’s moods and emotions.
Impressions from nonverbal behavior can be formed quickly and are often quite accurate.
Detection and deception
Detecting lies is not always easy.
Paying attention instead to the diagnostic hints of deception can increase successful detection of lies from those within our own culture, as well as from those from other cultures.
Impressions form familiarity
Most of us tend to develop positive feelings about the people we encounter frequently in or everyday lives.
Mere exposure: exposure to a stimulus without any external reward, which creates familiarity with the stimulus and generally makes people feel more positively about it.
Impressions from environments
Clues to other’s personality, behavior and values can be seen in the real and virtual environments they inhabit and create.
Impressions from behavior
The
.....read moreSocial psychology
Chapter 4
The self
Self-concept: all on an individual’s knowledge about his or her personal qualities.
Sources of the self-concept
People construct the self-concept in much the same way they form impressions of others, by interpreting various types of cues. People often learn their own characteristics from their observed behaviors. They also use thoughts and feelings and other people’s reactions to form impressions of themselves. Finally, people compare themselves to others to learn what characteristics make them unique.
Learning who we are from our own behavior
Self-perception theory: the theory that we make inferences about our personal characteristics on the basis of our overt behaviors when internal cues are weak or ambiguous.
We can learn things about ourselves by observing our own behavior.
People rely on their behavior to draw inferences about themselves, and this is especially true when we are first developing a self-concept or when we do not have a good sense of who we are in a particular domain.
People are especially likely to draw self-inferences from behaviors that they see as having freely chosen.
Providing external rewards often undermines intrinsic motivation.
Even imagined behaviors can be input for self-perception processes.
Thinking about actual or imagined behavior increases the accessibility of related personal characteristics.
Learning who we are from thoughts and feelings
An important cue to learning who we are comes from an interpretation of our own thoughts and feelings. This might have more impact than our behaviors.
Learning who we are from other people’s reactions
Other people’s views of us also serve as a cue in the development of the self-concept.
Reactions of others serve as a kind of mirror, reflecting our image so that we, too, can see it.
Being explicitly labeled as a trait may shape your self-concept. Other people;s more subtle reactions can also do the trick.
Other people’s reactions have the largest effects on people whose self-concepts are uncertain or are still developing.
Learning who we are from social comparison
Social comparison theory: the theory that people learn about and evaluate their personal qualities by comparing themselves to others.
Two effects:
Sociale psychologie
Chapter 5
Perceiving groups
Discrimination: positive or negative behavior directed toward a social group and its members.
Prejudice: a positive or negative evaluation of a social group and its members.
Stereotype: a mental representation or impression of a social group that people form by associating particular characteristics and emotions with the group.
Can be changed.
Targets of prejudice: social groups
Any group that shares a socially meaningful common characteristic can be a target for prejudice. Different cultures emphasize different types of groups, but race, religion, gender, age, social status, and cultural background are important dividing lines in many societies.
Social group: two or more people who share some common characteristic that is socially meaningful for themselves or for others.
Socially meaningful.
Social categorization: dividing the world into social groups
People identify individuals as members of social groups because they share socially meaningful features. Social categorization is helpful because it allows people to deal with others efficiently and appropriately. Social categorization also helps us feel connected to other people. However, social categorization exaggerates similarities within groups and differences between groups. It forms he basis for stereotyping.
Social categorization: the process of identifying individual people as members of a social group because they share certain features that are typical of the group.
Why?
Negative effects
The content of stereotypes
Many different kinds of characteristics are included in stereotypes, which can be positive or negative. Some stereotypes accurately reflect actual differences between groups, though in exaggerated form. Other stereotypes are completely inaccurate.
Stereotypes include many types of characteristics
Stereotypes usually go well beyond what groups look like or act like, to include the personality traits group members are believed to share and the positive or negative emotions or feelings group members arouse in others.
Stereotypes can be either positive or negative
Stereotypes can include positive as well as negative characteristics.
Even positive stereotypes can have negative consequences.
Social psychology
Chapter 6
Social identity
Being a member of a group influences many of our thoughts, feelings and actions.
Some group memberships are so important that they become a basic apart of our view of ourselves.
Self-categorization: the process of seeing oneself as a member of a social group.
Flexible and can readily shift depending on social context.
Social identity: those aspects of the self-concept that derive from an individual’s knowledge and feelings about the group membership he or she shares with others.
Extends the self out beyond the skin to include other members of our groups.
Most group memberships are stable en enduring.
Learning about our groups
People learn about the groups to which they belong in the same ways that they learn the characteristics of other groups: by observing other group members or from the culture.
What we and other group members do often becomes the basis for group stereotypes.
But what we do is strongly influenced by our roles.
Performing a role based on membership in some group can shape our future behaviors and, ultimately, our self-knowledge.
Feeling like a group member
Knowledge about group membership may be activated by direct reminders, such as:
Group membership is significant in some cultures and for some individuals, who tend to see the world in terms of that group membership.
Direct reminders of membership
The process is often subtle.
Circumstances remind us of our similarities with others, and this activates group membership.
The mere presence of other in-group members can be a potent reminder.
When group similarities are highlighted membership and all it entails becomes even more accessible.
This is powerful enough to overcome alternative categorizations that might be important in other circumstances.
Presence of out-group members
The presence of even a single out-group member is enough to increase our sense of in-group membership.
Being a minority
People are more likely to think of themselves in terms of their membership in smaller groups than in larger groups. Especially when they are sole representatives of their group in a situation.
Conflict or rivalry
The most potent factor that brings group membership to mind is ongoing conflict or rivalry between groups.
The importance of conflict also means that people identify more strongly with groups that they learn are targets of discrimination from the society at
Social psychology
Chapter 7
Attitude and attitude change
Attitude: a mental representation that summarizes an individual’s evaluation of a particular person, group, thing, action or idea.
Attitude change: the process by which attitudes form and change by the association of positive or negative information with the attitude object.
Persuasion: the process of forming, strengthening or changing attitudes by communication.
Measuring attitudes
Researches infer attitudes from people’s reactions to attitude objects. Such reactions can range form subtle uncontrollable evaluative reactions that people are unaware of, to more deliberate and controllable expressions of support or opposition. Assessing these different reactions shows that implicit attitudes can sometimes differ from explicit attitudes.
Two aspects of people’s reactions are important for attitudes:
The most straightforward way to measure attitudes to through self-report.
Social psychologists usually get people to report their attitudes using attitude scales.
Researchers need to keep in mind that the words they use and the response options they offer can subtly change the attitudes people report.
Social psychologists also use observations of behavior to gauge attitudes.
Explicit attitude: the attitude that people openly and deliberately express about an attitude objecct in self-report or by behavior.
People can control their explicit attitudes to hide or deny their true attitudes.
Techniques to get around people’s desire to hide what they really think:
Implicit attitude: automatic and uncontrollable positive or negative evaluation of an attitude object.
Measures:
People’s explicit attitudes sometimes differ from their implicit attitudes.
Such differences don’t mean that implicit attitudes are pure measures of what people ‘really’ think about attitude objects, while their explicit attitudes are designed to dissemble or distort.
Implicit attitudes simply reflect the positive or negative associations that people have to an object.
Explicit attitudes are more likely to reflect the evaluations that people deliberately endorse, and these include the attitudes they want to have, not just the ones they want to be seen having.
Attitude function
People form attitudes about almost everything they encounter because
.....read moreSocial psychology
Chapter 8
Attitudes and behavior
Attitudes and behaviors are often related for two reasons:
Some important conditions have to be in place for attitudes to guide behavior.
Attitudes are only one of several factors that can affect behavior.
From action to attitude via superficial processing
Behavior is an important part of the information on which people base attitudes. If behaviors change, attitudes can also change. When people process superficially, attitudes can be based on associations with actions or on inferences from actions. Like other forms of superficial processing, actions are more likely to affect attitudes in this way when people lack the motivation or ability to process more thoroughly.
At the most superficial level of processing, attitudes can be based on associations with actions.
Associations with action
Movements that are strongly associated with liking and disliking can rub off when they occur in the presence of an attitude object.
Because some muscle movements and positive or negative evaluation is very strong, activating those muscles and movements makes particular attitudes more likely. But this effect depends upon what such movements mean to us.
People believe that actions reflect intention and motivation. Just as we think that others’ actions reflect their inner states, we are used to assuming our own do too, unless something tells us otherwise.
Inferences from action: self-perception theory
People often make straightforward inferences from their actions to their attitudes.
People infer attitudes by observing their own behaviors and the situations in which those actions occur.
Like saying what you think someone else wants to hear. What people say colors their own attitudes.
People often infer their attitudes from their behavior, but self-perception is likely only when people chose their own behaviors freely.
The foot-in-the-door technique: could you do this small thing (first)?
Foot-in-the-door technique: a technique for increasing compliance with a large request by first asking people to go along with a smaller request, engaging self-perception processes.
How does it work?
When do action-to-attitude inferences change attitudes?
Social psychology
Chapter 9
Norms and conformity
What are social norms?
Because people are profoundly influenced by others’ ideas and actions, interaction or communication causes group members’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to become more alike. Whether a judgment task is clear-cut or ambiguous, trivial or important, individual members’ views converge to form a social norm. Norms reflect the group’s generally accepted way of thinking, feeling, or acting.
Social norms are similar to attitudes in that both are mental representations of appropriate ways of thinking, feeling, and acting.
But whereas attitudes represent an individual’s positive or negative evaluations, norms reflect shared group evaluations of what is true or false, good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate.
Descriptive social norms: agreed upon mental representations of what a group of people think, feel, or do.
Injunctive social norms: agreed upon mental representations of what a group of people should think, feel or do.
Most social norms have both qualities, because most people think, feel, or behave in a certain way that we think they should. When people act in the same way over and over again, they begin to think that they should act that way. Descriptive norms morph into injunctive norms.
Public versus private conformity
Conformity: the convergence of individuals’ thoughts, feelings, or behavior toward a social norm.
Occurs for two reasons:
Most of the time people privately accept group norms as their own, believing them to be correct and appropriate.
Sometimes people publicly go along with norms they do not privately accept.
Private conformity: private acceptance of social norms.
When people are truly persuaded that the group is right, when they willingly and privately accept group norms as their own beliefs, even if the group is no longer physically present.
Public conformity: overt behavior consistent with social norms that are not privately accepted.
Only a surface change.
We often privately conform to social norms without even realizing we are doing so.
Expecting consensus
Private conformity comes about because we expect to see the world the same way similar others see it. We often assume that most other people share our opinions and preferences. Agreement with others increases our confidence that our views are correct, whereas disagreement undermines that certainty.
The key reason people
.....read moreSocial psychology
Chapter 10
Norms and behavior
All human groups establish social norms.
Activating norms to guide behavior
Norms must be activated before they can guide behavior. They can be activated by direct reminders, environmental cues, or observations of other people’s behavior. When people see themselves purely in terms of group identity, their behavior is likely to be guided by group norms alone.
Norms can be made accessible by several means
- Direct reminders of norms
Which norms guide behavior?
Both descriptive norms and injunctive norms influence behavior, and these norms may sometimes interact with each other in interesting ways. One type of normative information may me more important than another, depending on our motivation and ability to think carefully.
Descriptive norms as guides for behavior
What other people are doing (descriptive norms) frequently influences what we do.
Giving people more accurate views of what their reference groups are doing changes behavior.
Injunctive norms as guides for behavior
Injunctive norms (shared beliefs about what should be done) can also influence behavior.
We sometimes misperceive injunctive norms.
The interplay of descriptive and injunctive norms
When injunctive and descriptive norms mismatched, behavioral intentions were as low as they were when there was no support from either type of norm.
Endorsement of injunctive norms is more effective when it is seen as sincere rather than as mere lip service.
When people get information about just one type of norm, they assume that the other norm is in line. Using descriptive norms may be cognitively easier.
Injunctive norm information has stronger effects.
Why norms guide behavior so effectively
Norms are sometimes enforced by rewards and punishments. More often, however, people follow norms simply because they seem right. Following norms may also be in our genetic makeup.
Enforcement: Do it, or else
The most obvious reason is that groups sometimes use rewards and punishments to motivate people to adhere group standards.
Norm enforcement can occur through various means.
Private acceptance: it’s
.....read moreSocial psychology
Chapter 11
Interaction and performance in groups
Interdependence: each group member’s throughts, emotions, and behaviors influence the others’.
Social facilitation: improvement and impairment
Even when interdependence is minimal, the mere presence of others can produce arousal, either because the other people are highly evaluative or because they are distracting.
Social facilitation: an increase in the likelihood of hihgly accessible responses, and a decrease in the likelihood of less accessible responses, due to the persence of others.
Even the virtual presence of virutal others can cause these effects.
Evaluation apprehension
When we focus on what other people think about us, it creates arousal, with sometimes postive and sometimes negative effects on performance.
Most of the time, we want other people to value, include, and like us. Ou self-esteem is greatly affected by what others think of us.
The presence of others who are in a posititon to judge us produces evaluation apprehension, which changes our performance in the way predicted by social facilitation theory.
Distraction
The presence of others can also disctract us from our task, also creating arousal and impacting performance. However, with specific types of tasks, distraction can focus us on taks-relevant cues, potentially improving performance.
Others can distract us.
Their mere presence causes us to think about them, to react to them, or to monitor what they are doing, and thereby deflects attention from the task at hand.
Our impulses to do two different things at once, conentrate on the task and to react to others, start to conflict wich each other, we become agitated and aroused.
This arousal will typically improve performance on simple tasks and interfere with it on difficult tasks.
The presence of others also requires people to split their attention between the other people and the task at hand.
Being crowded is arousing because crowds create many opportunities for evaluation and distraction.
Task interdependence: reliance on other members of a group for mastery of material outcomes that arise from the group’s task.
Social interependence: relieance on other members of the group for feelings of connectedenss, social and emotional rewards, and a positive social identity.
How groups change: stages of group development
Face-to-face groups usually go through different stages of relationship with their members.
Social psychology
Chapter 12
Attraction, relationships, and love
Challenges in studying attraction, relationships, and love
By necessity, most research on close friendships uses nonexperimental settings that leave some ambiguity about causal relations between variables, and most studies have focused on romantic attachments between heterosexual couples in individualist cultures.
We are fist drawn to people on the basis of their immediately obvious appearance or behavior.
Attraction follows rules:
As those factors draw tow people together, liking can develop, as each individual goes beyond surface features to start knowing the other better.
Physical attractiveness
Attraction to strangers is strongly influenced by perceptions of physical attractiveness. Some features are regarded as attractive across cultures. Other features that make people attractive are more dependent on experience, exposure, and expectation.
Biological bases of physical attractiveness
There are some immediately obvious physical features that almost everyone agrees are attractive.
Experimental bases of physical attractiveness
Despite the generally universal nature of cues of health and wealth, individuals and groups can also differ greatly in some of the physical characteristics they find attractive. This is because judgments of what is physically attractive are also strongly influenced by our experience and expectations.
Similarity
Similarity of many kinds increases attraction and liking because of:
Once you find someone ‘your type’, chances are you will end up liking this person.
Similarity breeds attraction and the better people get to know one another, the more their liking depends on similarity (does not have to be deep).
The more similar they are, the more people like each other. Liking is even greater is the qualities we share with others are important to us, and if they are
Social psychology
Chapter 13
Aggression and conflict
Defining aggression and conflict
Aggression, defined by people’s immediate intention to hurt each other, is often set in motion by incompatible goals. There are two types of aggression
Aggression: behavior intended to harm someone else.
Conflict: a perceived incompatibility of goals between tow or more parties.
Aggression often has its roots in conflict. What one party wants, the other party sees as harmful to its interests.
Conflict between individuals and groups is acted out in many forms.
Aggression and conflict between individuals and groups are found throughout the world.
They generally fall into two distinct categories.
Origins of aggression
Humans have evolved to compete effectively for good and mates. Although the capacity to act aggressively may have helped, aggression has no special place in ‘human nature’. Aggression is just one strategy among many others that humans use to attain rewards and respect, and too is influenced by cognitive processes and social forces.
Research on aggression
Aggression can be difficult to study experimentally because people are often unwilling to act aggressively when they are being observed. Researchers have used a variety of techniques to get around these problems.
Whether aggression is between individuals or between groups, it is usually triggered by perceptions and interpretations of some event or situation.
What causes interpersonal aggression? The role of rewards and respect
Aggression is triggered by a variety of factors. Some aggression is a result of mastery needs. Potential rewards make this kind of aggression more likely and costs of risks make it less likely. Sometimes, however, perceived provocation such as treat to the self-esteem or connectedness produces anger, which can also set of aggression. Many negative emotions can make aggression more likely. Norms too can promote aggressive behavior.
Counting rewards and costs
When aggression pays, it becomes more likely.
When rewards are withdrawn, aggression usually subsides. Even the possibility of punishment can deter aggression, if the threat is believed.
Rewards and costs are especially
.....read moreSocial psychology
Chapter 14
Helping and cooperation
Pro-social behavior: behavior intended to help someone else.
Cooperation: involves two or more people working together toward a common goal that will benefit all involved.
Altruism: behavior intended to help someone else without any prospect of personal rewards for the helper.
Egoism: behavior motivated by the desire to obtain personal rewards.
Helping is crucially dependent on people’s interpretation of a situation.
Is help needed and deserved?
Helping is dependent on people’s perception of someone as both needing and deserving help. The ability and motivation to pay attention to others’ needs influence whether people think help is needed. People are more likely to help those not held responsible for their own need.
Perceiving need
Several factors influence the judgment that someone needs help.
Becoming aware of a need is usually the first step in the helping chain of events.
Judging deservingness
Helping depends on whether we think help is deserved, and groups typically develop norms that dictate who does and who does not deserve help.
The norm of social responsibility: a norm that those able to take care of themselves have a duty and obligation to assist those who cannot.
Especially in the individualist cultures in the West, deservingness also depends on the attributions we make about controllability.
Stereotypes of social groups often influence judgments about controllability and deservingness.
Should I help?
People sometimes help because social norms, their own standards, of the behavior of others show them that it is appropriate to do so. However, sometimes the presence of other potential helpers can diminish the pressures to help. While some norms work against helping, others dictate that certain people should receive help.
Even when people think that helping is both needed and deserved, action doesn’t always follow.
Is helping up to me? Diffusion of responsibility
Diffusion of responsibility: the effect of other people present on diminishing each individual’s perceived responsibility for helping, one explanation for the bystander effect.
Bystander effect: the finding that the presence of
.....read moreIn this magazine, all summaries needed for the first year psychology course Social psychology are bundled.
JoHo can really use your help! Check out the various student jobs here that match your studies, improve your competencies, strengthen your CV and contribute to a more tolerant world
JoHo kan jouw hulp goed gebruiken! Check hier de diverse studentenbanen die aansluiten bij je studie, je competenties verbeteren, je cv versterken en een bijdrage leveren aan een tolerantere wereld
There are several ways to navigate the large amount of summaries, study notes en practice exams on JoHo WorldSupporter.
Do you want to share your summaries with JoHo WorldSupporter and its visitors?
Field of study
Add new contribution