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When rewards are withdrawn, aggression usually subsides.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 relevant for instrumental aggression, and often involve more systematic thinking about the situation, as opposed to an immediate emotional reaction.
One factor that enters into the cost-benefit equation of aggression is the aggressor’s personal abilities.
It is the perception of rewards and costs that trigger aggression.
Responding to threats
Interpersonal aggression frequently occurs in response to threats to self-esteem or connections to valued people or groups.
Any blow to self-esteem is worse if it is public. The presence of an audience may make aggressive responses to self-esteem threats more likely.
Perhaps the most extreme threat to self-esteem is the reminder that the self doesn’t last forever.
It can lead to aggression, specifically against someone who attacks one’s worldview.
Different people react in different ways to potential loss of respect.
Some individual’s are also more likely than others to interpret others’ act as provocations.
Threats to one’s sense of self, self-worth, or sense of belonging often trigger hostile aggression, fueled by a negative emotional reaction to the provocation.
Such provocations sometimes lead people to act aggressively without regard for the likelihood of reward or punishment.
The role of negative emotions
When people’s important mastery or connectedness goals are blocked or threatened, they generally feel negative emotions, which are strongly associated with aggression.
Frustration-aggression theory: a theory holding that any frustration, defined as the blocking of an important goal, inevitably triggers aggression.
Aggression is set off not so much by the blocking of a goal, but by the negative feelings that result.
A variety of conditions that create negative feelings can trigger aggression.
Increasing aggression: models and cues
Other people’s aggressive actions, including portrayals in the media, may indicate that aggression is appropriate. Cues in a specific situation, such as the presence of guns or other weapons, may also increase the accessibility of thoughts related to aggression. Both of these types of factors therefore make aggression more likely to occur.
Potential rewards, as well as threats that lead to negative emotions, may be the fundamental driving forces behind interpersonal aggression. However, external influences can push us further along the path to actual harmful action.
Models of aggression
Other people’s actions offer clues to the behavior that is appropriate in a situation.
Learned cues to aggression
Weapons, and especially guns, are strongly associated with the idea of aggression. If seeing a weapon cues thoughts of aggression, this in turn should make aggressive behavior more likely, and so it does.
People differ.
Common stereotypes can make observers more ready to see, or to imagine to see, a gun in the hand of members of some groups than of others.
Different countries’ norms about the acceptability of owning firearms may also influence incidents of aggressive behavior.
Deciding whether or not to aggress
Situations that favor superficial thinking often favor aggression. Thinking carefully can reduce aggression, but many factors interfere with people’s motivation and ability to process information carefully and evenhandedly, increasing the likelihood of aggression.
You need both motivation and capacity to find ways to resolve your conflict peacefully.
Several factors may limit people’s capacity to process deeply even when they are motivated to do so, often increasing the odds of aggression.
Putting it all together: the general aggression model
The General aggression model: a theory that person and situation factors influence people’s cognition, emotions, and arousal, which in turn influence interpretations of the situation and decisions about aggression.
The desire to act aggressively is not always carried out, because social norms and the actions of others also play a major role in the decision to initiate or restrain aggression.
Person Situation
Current internal state
Appraisal and decision processes
Thoughtful action Impulsive action
Sources of intergroup conflict: the battle for riches and respect
Most group conflict stems from competition for valued material resources or for social rewards such as respect and esteem. People use social comparisons to determine acceptable levels of resources. Groups in conflict are often more attuned to social rewards than to material ones.
Although groups are often more competitive and aggressive than individuals, groups and individuals turn to aggression for the same basic reasons.
Realistic conflict theory: getting the goods
Realistic conflict theory: the theory that intergroup hostility arises from competition among groups for scare but valued material resources.
The potential gain or loss of material resources motivates intergroup aggression.
Group competition can quickly escalate from dislike into hostility and aggression.
Relative deprivation: when is enough enough
Relative deprivation theory: the theory that feelings of discontent arise from the belief that other individuals or other groups are better of.
Fraternal relative deprivation: the sense that one’s group is not doing as well as other groups.
Has little to do with objective levels of adequacy or success.
Much more likely to cause intergroup conflict than is egoistic deprivation.
Social competition: getting a little respect
Groups also fight over social goods: respect, esteem and ‘bragging rights’.
Social identity. People’s desire to see their own groups as better than other groups can lead to intergroup bias and can contribute to conflict.
The special competitiveness of groups: groups often value respect over riches
One reason for the greater competitiveness of groups than individuals:
When groups vie to be ‘number one’, social competition and the effort to outdo one’s opponent frequently overshadow competition for material resources.
Escalating conflict: group communication and interaction
Once conflict starts, poor communication can make it worse. In-group interaction hardens in-group opinions, threats are directed at the out-group, each group retaliates more and more harshly, and other parties choose sides. All of these processes tend to escalate the conflict.
Talking to the in-group: polarization and commitment
Discussion won’t help if the only person you talk to are those who take your side.
Talking things over with like-minded group members pushes other group members toward extreme views. (group polarization)
As a result of group discussion, then, people may see their group’s position as even more valid and valuable, and they may become even more firmly attached to it.
During discussion, we also become more committed to our views.
As group members see themselves getting worked up, they conclude that they must care a lot about the issues. Dissonance-reduction.
The special competitiveness of groups: when conflict arises, groups close ranks
In situations of conflict, groups demand loyalty, solidarity, and strict adherence to group norms.
Leaders sometimes take advantage of the unifying effect of conflict to strengthen their hold on power.
Talking to the out-group: back off, or else!
As positions harden, groups find it increasingly difficult to communicate productively, so persuasion and discussion often give way to threats and attempt coercion.
Most people believe that threats increase their bargaining power and their chances of getting their way. As a result both groups tend to use threats, leaving neither group with an advantage.
But threats provoke counterthreats, diminish people’s willingness to compromise, and in the end generate hostility.
Threats usually are counterproductive. They threatened group may assume that aggression is inevitable no matter how it responds. And if it responds with a counterthreat, the first group’s belief in the opponent’s hostility and unwillingness to compromise will be confirmed.
Threats and counterthreats almost invariably escalate in intensity rather than staying in the same level.
When threats dominate communication, they crowd out messages about cooperative solutions.
Vicarious retribution: they hurt us, now I hurt them
The direct victims of a real or perceived intergroup attack or insult are not the only ones who want to retaliate.
Vicarious retribution: members of a group who were not themselves directly harmed by an attack retaliating against members of the offending group.
With so many new potential perpetrators, further incidents between groups become likely.
Coalition formation: escalation as others choose sides
Coalition formation: occurs when two or more parties pool their resources to obtain a mutual goal they probably could not achieve alone.
Tends to polarize multiple parties into two opposing sides.
When two groups are in conflict, coalition formation is usually seen as a threatening action that, like most threats, only intensifies competition.
Those excluded form the coalition may react with fear and anger, and they often form their own coalitions.
As unaffiliated groups ally wit one side or the other, differences become polarized and the dangerous allure of consensus convinces each side that it is right.
Perceptions in conflict: what else could you expect from them?
As escalation continues, the in-group sees the out-group as totally evil and sees itself in unrealistically positive terms. Emotion and arousal make these biases even worse.
These conflict-driven perceptions may have little basis in reality, but they affect the group’s understanding of what is happening and why.
This skewed understanding in turn becomes a guide for group behavior.
Polarized perceptions of in-group and out-group
Groups enmeshed in conflict tend to develop three blind spots in their thinking:
Biased attributions for behavior
Groups in conflict frequently attribute identical behaviors by the in-group and the out-group to diametrically opposed causes.
In the context of conflict, attributions for in-group and out-group actions are biased in two different ways:
The impact of emotion and arousal: more heat, less light
As conflict rises, people experience tension, anger, anxiety, frustration, and fear.
This emotional arousal affects processes of perception and communication and produces simplistic thinking.
As complex thinking shuts down, decisions are based on simple stereotypes, snap judgments, and automatic reactions.
Emotions can not only lead to oversimple thinking about an opposing group, but also direct behaviors toward that group, often in negative ways.
Of particular importance are the emotions that people feel when they are thinking of themselves as members of their group. Group-based emotions depend on the particular nature of the threats that an out-group is seen as opposing.
Distinct emotions can motivate different types of action toward an out-group.
The special competitiveness of groups: people expect groups to be super-competitive, so they react in kind
Biased an extreme perceptions of out-groups are another reason why groups act more competitively than individuals.
People expect groups o be highly competitive and hostile. This expectation has a self-fulfilling quality.
‘Final solutions’: eliminating the out-group
Ultimately, conflict may escalate into an attempt at total domination or destruction of the out-group. When power differences exist between the groups and the out-group is morally excluded, one group may try to eliminate the other.
Three factors seem particularly important in pushing a group to seek a ‘final solution’ to intergroup differences one the groundwork of intergroup hostility and conflict has been laid.
Gradually escalate
The special competitiveness of groups: groups offer social support for competitiveness
Groups offer a rich soil for rationalizing negative acts that are motivated by greed or by fear of the out-group.
Altering perceptions and reactions
Approaches to reducing aggression and conflict include promoting norms of nonaggression, minimizing or removing the cues that often cause individuals to commit aggressive acts, and encouraging careful interpretation and identification with others.
Promote norms of non-aggression
Norms are usually most effective in limiting aggression against other in-group members. Similarity reduces aggression.
Because:
Minimize cues for aggression
Some cues activate aggressive thoughts and feelings, making overt acts of aggression more likely.
Not only the removal of negative cues, but also the presence of more positive cues may reduce the likelihood of aggression.
Interpret, and interpret again
In most cases, systematic thought seems to be helpful in preventing aggression.
Engaging in self-distancing might help.
Promote empathy with others
Encouraging people to move closer to another person’s perspective.
Aggression is easiest when victims are distanced and dehumanized.
Empathy is a fellow feelings, and fellow feeling is incompatible with aggression.
Resolving conflict through negotiation
Conflict resolution also involves the parties in trying to find mutually acceptable solutions, which requires understanding and trust. When direct discussion is unproductive, third parties can intervene to help the parties settle their conflict.
Types of solutions
Achieving solutions: the negotiation process
Negotiation: the process by which parties in conflict communicate and influence each other to reach agreement.
Successful resolution of conflict requires sufficient time for negotiation.
When adequate time is available, the fundamental goal of negotiators is to help each party understand how the other interprets and evaluates the issues.
Building trust
One of he priorities of negotiation is to build trust, so that parties will abandon their search for negative motives within each other’s proposals.
Negotiators usually try to break conflicts into sets of small, manageable issues. When one party successfully negotiates an issue with the opponent, liking and trust for the other party increase, perhaps making later issues easier to settle.
Mediation and arbitration: bringing in third parties
Direct communication is not always the best way to resolve conflicts.
Advantages of third party involvement:
Intergroup cooperation: changing social identity
Conflict resolution can also be facilitated by having groups cooperate toward shared goals that can be attained only if both groups work together. Under the proper conditions, cooperative intergroup interaction reduces conflict.
Superordinate goals
Superordinate goals: shared goals that can be attained only if groups work together.
Superordinate goals improved intergroup relationships, but not overnight.
Why does intergroup cooperation work?
Intergroup cooperation is not a foolproof cure for conflict. But when the right conditions exist, intergroup cooperation undermines many processes that contribute to conflict and ti encourages positive interaction and even friendship, which can ultimately reduce prejudice.
Forming a new and more inclusive in-group works best in solving intergroup conflict if the original groups retain some measure of distinctiveness. This highlights that the contact between members is truly intergroup.
Under the right conditions, intergroup cooperation not only leads group members to think of themselves in terms of a higher-level common identity, bu also encourages them to get to know out-group members as individuals.
Intergroup cooperation for superordinate goals hods the promise of true conflict resolution, rather than conflict management.
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
What is social psychology? - summary of chapter 1 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)
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
.....read more Perceiving individuals - summary of chapter 3 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)Social 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
.....read more The self - summary of chapter 4 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)Social 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:
Perceiving groups - summary of chapter 5 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)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
Social identity - summary of chapter 6 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)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
Attitude and attitude change - summary of chapter 7 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)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
.....read more Attitudes and behavior - summary of chapter 8 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)Social 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?
Norms and conformity - summary of chapter 9 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)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
.....read more Norms and behavior - summary of chapter 10 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)Social 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.
Interaction and performance in groups - summary of chapter 11 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)Social 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
.....read more Attraction, relationships, and love - summary of chapter 12 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)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
Aggression and conflict - summary of chapter 13 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)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
Helping and cooperation - summary of chapter 14 of Social Psychology by Smith, E, R (fourth edition)Social 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
.....read more Introduction to social psychologyIn this magazine, all summaries needed for the first year psychology course Social psychology are bundled.
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