Social Psychology exam 3 study guide
Terms in this set (43)
Attraction:What is the Propinquity Effect and why does it occur (based on what more basic process in
What empirical support is there for this effect on attractiveness?
propinquity effect- the tendency to be more attracted to people whom you interact with regularly
BASED ON The PROXIMITY EFFECT It hardly sounds romantic, but the single best predictor of whether two people will get together is physical proximity or nearness. To be sure, we often interact at remote distances by telephone, e-mail, Twitter, blogs, and message boards. These days it's common for people to find friends, lovers, and sexual partners from a distance. Yet some of our most important social interactions still occur among people who find themselves in the same place at the same time (Latané et al., 1995).
Dorm study(Festinger 1950) - randomly assigned strangers in dorm and sureyed them on their friendshops they established
-Negative correlation between distance and social interaction
Participants listed 3 closet friends
65%LIVED IN THE SAME BUILDING
41% NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS
22% TWO DOORS DOWN
10% 3 DOORS DOWN
-ROOMS CLOSET TO STAIRS KNEW PEOPLE UPSTAIRS
Attraction: Explain how you might use mere exposure to get someone to be attracted to you. Provide
empirical support for why this would work. Under what circumstances might this fail to work or
even backfire on you?
why does proximity increase attraction -mere exposure effect: the more exposure people have to a stimulus the more positively it is evaluated( if stimulus is not already negative) this works best if you are more aware of the stimulus
MORELAND AND BEACH STUDY Mere exposure and attraction(1002) female confederates entered classroom
1. 0 Times-->3.6 (attractiveness rating)
2. 5 times---> 3.9
3. 10 times---> 4.2
4. 15 times--> 4.4
Attraction:Explain the "what is beautiful is good" stereotype, provide one piece of evidence showing the
impact of this effect.
what is beautiful is good stereotype: the belief that physically attractive individuals also possesses other desirable personality traits
for example, an attractive picture + medical school=smart
or unattractive picture + medical school= nerd
Attraction:Provide one finding that illustrates how being beautiful isn't always a positive experience.
1.Other people feeling uncomfortable and sad around the attractive person, probably cant keep friends of the same sex
2. Suspicions about the quality of other things that attractive People do, like the quality of their work. There could be suspicions that people give attavgive people positive feedback based on their looks and not their abilities
Attraction:How does it feel for heterosexuals to see a perfect 10 of their own sex. How about a 10 of the
opposite sex? How does similarity relate to attraction and why?
1. Uncomfrotable, they start feeling bad about themselves, but when we see a 10 of the other sex we like them and are attracted to them we have positive feelings
After initial attraction what keeps people interested?
First encounters answer - Similarity. We like those who are similar to us
-matching hypothesis: people tend to form relationships with people who are similar to them
Similarity 1. Similar people make us feel likable and correct (false consensus)
2. More to talk about -> mere exposure
3. Disagreement is unattractive
(Ex. SNL skit on singles cruise)
Attraction:What gender differences are their in the traits men and women seek in the opposite sex? Now
contrast the evolutionary and socio-cultural explanations for the basis of these differences
Gender differences in women-women seek men who are OLDER. have MORE RESOURCES, who are more STABLE and ESTABLISHED
Gender differences in Men- Men seek Fertile, attractive, young women with a PREMIUM ON FAITHFULNESS .
Gender differences: Nature Evolutionary perspective- differences in how men and women approach relationships and select mates are based on evolution
WOMEN are limited in the number of children they can have so they pick men who will stay around and provide resources. The result is that women become more threatened by emotional infidelity.
MEN are different they can father unlimited number of children, they need mates who are healthy and able to have children. Also since there is no guaranteed percentage of getting this result men are more threatened by Sexual infidelity
Gender differences: Nurture Sociocultural perspective- gender differences due to sociocultural factors
-youth, beauty, and financial stability are never the top of peoples lists. but kind, dependable and funny are the highest on the list for both men and women
sex differences are due to social circumstances that women face. if prevented by society, women have to obtain resources and power through men.
Gender differences -(As far as societies standards go) society likes to publicly pair men and women in typical social groups.
-for example, Chris from the bachelor a 31 year old farmer married Whitney the 29 year old fertility nurse.
And Russel Simmons 35 year old hip hop mogul marrying 17 year old HS senior and aspiring model Kimora
-typically works with longterm partners
Social exchange theory
A perspective that views people as motivated to maximize benefits and minimize costs in their relationships with others.
Attraction:Use all of the elements of the social exchange theory highlighted in class to illustrate an example
from your past (or a 'friend's' past) where a break-up occurred. Make sure to mention all of the
key variables of the model, assign them a number and calculate the result
people want to maximize benefits and minimize costs
when risks out weigh the rewards people will terminate or abandon that relationship
we take the benefits and minimize the costs in order to determine how much the relationship will cost you
Between intimates, the
REWARDS-INCLUDE LOVE, COMPANIONSHIP, CONSOLATION IN TIMES OF DISTRESS, AND SEXUAL GRATIFICATION IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS OF THIS NATURE.
THE COSTS-INCLUDE THE WORK IT TAKES TO MAINTAIN A RELATIONSHIP, WORK THOUGH CONFLICT, COMPROMISE, AND SACRIFICE OPPORTUNITIES ELSEWHERE.
Close relationships: Social exchange Theory -Economic model to predict staying together or not satisfaction- reward- Costs- comparison level
-comparison level- expectation of what rewards and costs of a relationship should be
commitment=satisfaction-Clait(omparison level of Alternatives) + investments
comparison level of Alternatives: expectation of satisfaction with available alternatives
The basic premise is simple: Relationships that provide more rewards and fewer costs will be more satisfying and endure longer.
CL-WHAT YOU EXPECT TO GET FROM RELATIONSHIP. Rewards and costs do not arise in a psychological vacuum. All people bring to a relationship certain expectations about the balance sheet to which they are entitled. John Thibaut and Harold Kelley (1959) coined the term comparison level (CL) to refer to this average expected outcome in relationships.relationships. A person with a high CL expects his or her relationships to be rewarding; someone with a low CL does not. Situations that meet or exceed a person's expectations are more satisfying than those that fall short. Even a bad relationship can look pretty good to someone who has a low CL.
According to Thibaut and Kelley, a second kind of expectation is also important. They coined the term comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) to refer to people's expectations about what they would receive in an alternative situation. If the rewards available elsewhere are believed to be high, a person will be less committed to staying in the present relationship (Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992). If people perceive that they have few acceptable alternatives (a low CLalt), they will tend to remain, even in an unsatisfying relationship that fails to meet expectations (CL).
REWARDS- COST-COMPARISON LEVEL(CL)
SATISFACTION- COMPARISON LEVEL FOR ALTERNATIVES(CLAT)+ INVESTMENTS
Attraction:What are the three attachment styles? What evidence supports that secure attachment style is
better for a relationship than avoidant attachment style?
Types of relationships(attachment style) attachment style definition- How people typically interact with significant others
1. secure: not overtly threatened by others trying to get too close, not overly worried about being dependent or abandoned
2. Avoidant: threatened by others who get too close or who are dependent on them, fear of being psychologically intimate
3. Anxious: wants more affection from partner than partner is willing to give, worried about being abondoned
SIMPSON EXPERIMENT(1992) 1. Couples come to study together, tell women experiment arouses anxiety/distress
2. left alone with their partner(under observation)
Secure woman-turned to boyfriend for help
secure man- was caring in response
Avoidant woman- puled away from boyfriend
Avoidant man-less caring when girlfriend is anxious
good news: peoples attachment style can change
Attraction:Explain restriction of range as it applies to marital satisfaction over time if you look at 10 years
as opposed to the full lifetime of a marriage across all of the ages of children.
if you look at the marital status from a 10 year stand point parents happiness seems to be in a steady decrease however if you look at the maritial status from a full lifetime of marriage average happiness increases AFTER children leave the nest
Marital satisfaction over time chart chart shows that married couples are happier before children come and after they leave the nest
but there is a restriction of change, so it continuously varies over time
Restriction of range-Imposition of conditions by a researcher which limit the whole range of scores having been collected to a very constrained fraction of the total for observation.
What is RESTRICTION OF RANGE? definition of RESTRICTION OF RANGE (Psychology Dictionary)
Attraction:What is the difference between exchange and communal relationships? How can it cause
problems when one person views the relationship as exchange and the other as communal?
Types of relationships(Exchange, and communal)
1. governed by Equity concern, quick reciprocity
2. more common among strong acquaintances and business associates
3. No empathy
1. Govenred by motivation to respond to needs
2. common among close friends and partners
Pick your parents or some other authority figure (a boss, superior officer, pastor, professor) and
give one example of conformity, compliance, and obedience from your experience with this
individual. What makes each an example of conformity, compliance, and obedience?
My mother believes that sex at a young age damages a young women I took on this opinion and conformed to it and I believe it too.
If Im caught dating someone in college my mom will tell me to stop, and I will and elicit compliance
However if i decide to continue to date this person and she finds out she will issue a command to stop and the I will be obedient and stop the action comletely
Obedience:Briefly summarize the procedure of the classic Milgram experiment, including the three roles
played by different people in the experiment.
Milgram, 1963 1. Learner( confederate) and teacher(participant)
2. cover story: influence of punishment on memory increasing voltage shocks for errors
3. experimenter orders teacher to obey, learner gives scripted pain responses
DV: How high im voltage the teacher goes before refusing to continue
if participant asked to stop the experimenter stated " please continue" the experimenter tells person that they absolutely must continue each time they stop, which is influenced pressure
3 ROLES- EXPERIMENTER(WHITE LAB COAT GUY ENCOURAGING PARTICIPANT TO CONINUE), PARTICIPANT(UNKNOWN PARTICPANT), LEARNER(TAKES AND FAKES PAIN)
(BOOK EXPLANATION- look. Imagine yourself as one of the approximately 1,000 participants who found themselves in the following situation. The experience begins when you arrive at a Yale University laboratory and meet two men. One is the experimenter, a stern young man dressed in a gray lab coat and carrying a clipboard. The other is a middle-aged gentleman named Mr. Wallace, an accountant who is slightly overweight and average in appearance. You exchange quick introductions, and then the experimenter explains that you and your co-participant will take part in a study on the effects of punishment on learning. After lots have been drawn, it is determined that you will serve as the teacher and that Mr. Wallace will be the learner. So far, so good. Soon, however, the situation takes on a more ominous tone. You find out that your job is to test the learner's memory and administer electric shocks of increasing intensity whenever he makes a mistake. You are then escorted into another room, where the experimenter straps Mr. Wallace into a chair, rolls up his sleeves, attaches electrodes to his arms, and applies "electrode paste" to prevent blisters and burns. As if that isn't bad enough, you may overhear Mr. Wallace telling the experimenter that he has a heart problem. The experimenter responds by conceding that the shocks will be painful but reassures Mr. Wallace that the procedure will not cause "permanent tissue damage." In the meantime, you can personally vouch for how painful the shocks are because the experimenter stings you with one that is supposed to be mild. The experimenter then takes you back to the main room, where you are seated in front of a "shock generator," a machine with 30 switches that range from 15 volts, labeled "slight shock," to 450 volts, labeled "XXX."Your role in this experiment is straightforward. First you read a list of word pairs to Mr. Wallace through a microphone. Then you test his memory with a series of multiplechoice questions. The learner answers each question by pressing one of four switches that light up signals on the shock generator. If his answer is correct, you move on to the next question. If it is incorrect, you announce the correct answer and shock him. When you press the appropriate shock switch, a red light flashes above it, relay switches click inside the machine, and you hear a loud buzzing sound go off in the learner's room. After each wrong answer, you're told, the intensity of the shock should be increased by 15 volts. You aren't aware, of course, that the experiment is rigged and that Mr. Wallace—who is actually a confederate—is never really shocked. As far as you know, he gets zapped each time you press one of the switches. As the session proceeds, the learner makes more and more errors, leading you to work your way up the shock scale. As you reach 75, 90, and 105 volts, you hear the learner grunt in pain. At 120 volts, he begins to shout. If you're still in it at 150 volts, you can hear the learner cry out, "Experimenter! That's all.Get me out of here. My heart's starting to bother me now. I refuse to go on!" Screams of agony and protest continue. At 300 volts, he says he absolutely refuses to continue. By the time you surpass 330 volts, the learner falls silent and fails to respond—not to be heard from again. Table 7.4 lists his responses in grim detail. Somewhere along the line, you turn to the experimenter for guidance. "What should I do? Don't you think I should stop? Shouldn't we at least check on him?" You might even confront the experimenter head-on and refuse to continue. Yet in answer to your inquiries, the experimenter—firm in his tone and seemingly unaffected by the learner's distress—prods you along as follows: l Please continue (or please go on). l The experiment requires that you continue. l It is absolutely essential that you continue. l You have no other choice; you must go on. What do you do? In a situation that begins to feel more and more like a bad dream, do you follow your own conscience or obey the experimenter?)
PREDICTIONS-everyone that was surveyed said they wouldn't go up to the highest shock level if they were put in that situation but the statistics show this isn't true, 60% of random experimenters did and decided to be obedient
Milgram described this procedure to psychiatrists, college students, and middle-class adults, and he asked them to predict how they would behave. On average, these groups estimated that they would call it quits at the 135-volt level. Not a single person thought he or she would go all the way to 450 volts. When asked to predict the percentage of other people who would deliver the maximum shock, those interviewed gave similar estimates. The psychiatrists estimated that only one out of a thousand people would exhibit that kind of extreme obedience. They were wrong. In Milgram's initial study, involving 40 men from the surrounding New Haven community, participants exhibited an alarming degree of obedience, administering an average of 27 out of 30 possible shocks. In fact, 26 of the 40 participants—that's 65%— delivered the ultimate punishment of 450 volts.
Obedience:What more strongly determined who gave all of the shocks in the classic experiment on
obedience from the 1950's, the situation or personality? Provide evidence supporting the role of
your choice in determining the percentage who give all the shocks?
To begin with, those in a control group who were not prodded along by an experimenter refused to continue early into the shock sequence. What's more, Milgram found that virtually all participants, including those who had administered severe shocks, were tormented by the experience. Many of them pleaded with the experimenter to let them stop. When he refused, they went on. But in the process, they trembled, stuttered, groaned, perspired, bit Milgram varied many factors in his research program. Without commands from an experimenter, fewer than 3% of the participants exhibited full obedience. Yet in the standard baseline condition, 65% of male and female participants followed the orders. To identify factors that might reduce this level, Milgram varied the location of the experiment, the status of the authority, the participant's proximity to the victim, and the presence of confederates who rebel.
PEOPLE APPEAL TO AUTHORITY AND THE SITUATION MAKES THEM OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW THAT AUTHORITY
Obedience:Summarize one variant on the classic Milgram procedure and whether it increased or decreased
the likelihood of providing shocks all the way to the maximum amount
In the experiment people who were given the control but no commands or no pressure to complete the commands only exhibited a less than %10 of obedience
and also the instance where two other people rebel
those people compromised the authority of the situation which allowed for the participant to ignore the authority as well they exhibited an obedience of 10%
Obedience:Describe one explanation for the reason or process behind why Americans were willing to shock
a stranger based on the orders of an authority figure. What behavior allowed some people to
Still, his physical presence and his apparent legitimacy played major roles in drawing obedience. When Milgram diminished the experimenter's status by moving his lab from the distinguished surroundings of Yale University to a run-down urban office building in nearby Bridgeport, Connecticut, the rate of total obedience dropped to 48%. When the experimenter was replaced by an ordinary person—supposedly another participant—there was a sharp reduction to 20%. Similarly, Milgram found that when the experimenter was in charge but issued his commands by telephone, only 21% fully obeyed. (In fact, when the experimenter was not watching, many participants in this condition feigned obedience by pressing the 15-volt switch.) One conclusion, then, is clear. At least in the Milgram setting, destructive obedience requires the physical presence of a prestigious authority figure. If an experimenter can exert such control over research participants, imagine the control wielded by truly powerful authority figures—whether they are present or not.
Experimenter in remote location
Ordinary person in charge
Two confederates rebel
Control — no commands
What is mindlessness and how you can use it to jump in line to make copies at the library?
Sometimes people can be disarmed by the simple phrasing of a request, regardless of its merit. Consider, for example, requests that sound reasonable but offer no real basis for compliance. Ellen Langer and her colleagues (1978) have found that words alone can sometimes trick us into submission. In their research, an experimenter approached people who were using a library copying machine and asked to cut in. Three different versions of the request were used. In one, participants were simply asked, "Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?" In a second version, the request was justified by the added phrase "because I'm in a rush." As you would expect, more participants stepped aside when the request was justified (94%) than when it was not (60%). A third version of the request, however, suggests that the reason offered had little to do with the increase in compliance. In this case, participants heard the following: "Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies?" If you read this request closely, you'll see that it really offered no reason at all. Yet 93% in this condition complied! It was as if the appearance of a reason, triggered by the word because, was all that was necessary.Indeed, Langer (1989) finds that the mind is often on "automatic pilot"—we respond mindlessly to words without fully processing the information they are supposed to convey. At least for requests that are small, "sweet little nothings" may be enough to win compliance.
Compliance:Explain what a sequential request strategy is and summarize one time you have seen one used (PECULIAR AND ATYPICAL REQUESTS)
ASkING FOR SOMETHING SMALL TO GET THE PERSON TO COMMIT TO THE LARGER REQUEST is to break the ice with a small initial request that the customer CANT EASILY REFUSE.. Once that first commitment is elicited, the chances are increased that another, larger request will succeed.
To test this hypothesis, researchers had a confederate approach people on the street and make a request that was either typical ("Can you spare a quarter?") or atypical ("Can you spare 17 cents?"). The result: Atypical pleas elicited more comments and questions from those who were targeted—and produced a 60% increase in the number of people who gave money (Santos et al., 1994). In another study, researchers who went door to door selling holiday cards gained more compliance when they disrupted the mindless process and reframed the sales pitch. They sold more cards when they said the price was "three hundred pennies—that's three dollars, it's a bargain" than when they simply asked for three dollars (Davis & Knowles, 1999).
Compliance:Explain one piece of research evidence that supports the role of reciprocity norms in compliance,
now do the same for consistency pressure.
reciprocity dictates that we treat others as they have treated us (Gouldner, 1960). On the negative side, this norm can be used to sanction retaliation against those who cause us harm—"an eye for an eye." On the positive side, it leads us to feel obligated to repay others for acts of kindness. Thus, whenever we receive gifts, invitations, and free samples, we usually go out of our way to return the favor.
-COMPLIANCE=DENNIS REGAN(1971) The norm of reciprocity contributes to the predictability and fairness of social interaction. However, it can also be used to exploit us. examined this possibility in the following laboratory study. Individuals were brought together with a confederate who was trained to act in a likable or unlikable manner for an experiment on "aesthetics." In one condition, the confederate did the participant an unsolicited favor. He left during a break and returned with two bottles of Coca-Cola, one for himself and the other for the participant. In a second condition, he returned from the break empty-handed. In a third condition, participants were treated to a Coke, but by the experimenter, not the confederate. The confederate then told participants in all conditions that he was selling raffle tickets at 25 cents apiece and asked if they would be willing to buy any. On average, participants bought more raffle tickets when the confederate had earlier brought them a soft drink than when he had not. The norm of reciprocity was so strong that they returned the favor even when the confederate was not otherwise a likable character. In fact, participants in this condition spent an average of 43 cents on raffle tickets. At a time when soft drinks cost less than a quarter, the confederate made a handsome quick profit on his investment!
-Consistency pressure JERRY BURGER(1997)-pressure to remain consistent
But does receiving a favor make us feel indebted forever or is there a time limit to the social obligation that is so quietly unleashed? In an experiment designed to answer this question, Jerry Burger and others (1997) used Regan's soft drink favor and had the confederate try to "cash in" with a request either immediately or one week later. The result: Compliance levels increased in the immediate condition but not after a full week had passed. People may feel compelled to reciprocate, but that feeling—at least for small acts of kindness—is relatively short-lived.
AS TIME PASSSED PEOPLE NO LONGER FEEL OBLIGATED TO REPAY YOU FOR BEING GOOD TO THEM
"If someone does you a favor, it's good to repay that person with a greater favor." On the receiving end, some people try more than others not to accept favors that might later set them up to be exploited. On a scale that measures reciprocation wariness, people are said to be wary if they express the suspicion, for example, that "asking for another's help gives them power over your life" (Eisenberger et al., 1987). Cultures may also differ in terms of their reciprocation wariness—with interesting consequences for social behavior. Imagine that you bump into a casual friend at the airport, stop for a drink, and the friend offers to pay for it. Would you let the friend pay? Or, suppose a sales clerk in a supermarket offered you a free sample of soup to taste. Would you accept the offer? Theorizing that the norm of reciprocity operates with particular force in collectivist cultures that foster interdependence, Hao Shen and others (2011) conducted a series of studies in which they posed these kinds of questions to Chinese college students from Hong Kong and to European American students from Canada. As you can see in l Figure 7.7, the students from China were consistently less willing to accept the favor. Additional questioning revealed that these participants were more likely to see the gift giver's motives as self-serving and to feel uncomfortably indebted by the situation.
Compliance:What is the foot-in-the-door technique? If you were a girl scout, how could you use it to sell the
ASKING A REASONABLE REQUEST THAT GETS APPROVED THEN COMING BACK MUCH LATER AND ASKING WHAT YOU REALLY WANT
A twostep compliance technique in which an influencer sets the stage for the real request by first getting a person to comply with a much smaller request.
is to break the ice with a small initial request that the customer can't easily refuse. Once that first commitment is elicited, the chances are increased that another, larger request will succeed.
FOR EXAMPLE, Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser (1966) tested the impact of this technique in a series of field experiments. In one, an experimenter pretending to be employed by a consumer organization telephoned a large number of female homemakers in Palo Alto, California, and asked if they would be willing to answer some questions about household products. Those who consented were then asked a few quick and innocuous questions and thanked for their assistance. Three days later, the experimenter called back and made a considerable, almost outrageous, request. He asked the women if they would allow a handful of men into their homes for two hours to rummage through their drawers and cupboards so they could take an inventory of their household products. The foot-in-the-door technique proved to be very effective. When the participants were confronted with only the very intrusive request, 22% consented. Yet the rate of agreement among those who had been surveyed earlier more than doubled, to 53%. This basic result has now been repeated over and over again. People are more likely to donate time, money, food, blood, the use of their home, and other resources once they have been induced to go along with a small initial request. Although the effect is not always as dramatic as that obtained by Freedman and Fraser, it does appear in a wide variety of circumstances, and it increases compliance rates, on average, by about 13% (Burger, 1999).
Compliance:How is low-balling used by car salesmen? Why does it work?
lowballing A two-step compliance technique in which the influencer secures agreement with a request but then increases the size of that request by revealing hidden costs. EXPERIMENTER TRIES TO GET YOU TO AGREE TO SOMETHING DESPITE THE ADDED COST
cast aside other considerations and shake hands on the deal and as the salesperson goes off to "write it up," you begin to feel the thrill of owning a new car. Absorbed in fantasy, you are suddenly interrupted by the return of the salesperson. "I'm sorry," he says. "The manager would not approve the sale. We have to raise the price by another $450. I'm afraid that's the best we can do." As the victim of an all-too-common trick known as lowballing, you are now faced with a tough decision. On the one hand, you really like the car; and the more you think about it, the better it looks. On the other hand, you don't want to pay more than you bargained for and you have an uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach that you're being duped. What do you do?
Compliance:Describe the steps in the door-in-the-face technique. Why does this work and give one
experimental result that supports it.
CIALDINI STUDY (1975)technique A two-step compliance technique in which an influencer prefaces the real request with one that is so large that it is rejected.
FOR EXAMPLE,The technique is as simple as it sounds. An individual makes an initial request that is so large it is sure to be rejected and then comes back with a second, more reasonable request. Will the second request fare better after the first one has been declined? Plagued by the sight of uneaten chocolate bars, Cialdini and others (1975) tested the effectiveness of the door-in-the-face technique. They stopped college students on campus and asked if they would volunteer to work without pay at a counseling center for juvenile delinquents. The time commitment would be forbidding: roughly two hours a week for the next two years! Not surprisingly, everyone who was approached politely slammed the proverbial door in the experimenter's face. But then the experimenter followed up with a more modest proposal, asking the students if they would be willing to take a group of kids on a two-hour trip to the zoo. The strategy worked like a charm.
Compliance: Explain how reciprocity relates to the: "That's not all folks..." technique.
A two-step compliance technique in which the influencer begins with an inflated request, then decreases its apparent size by offering a discount or bonus. PEOPLE APPEAL TO A SUDDEN IMPROVEMENT IN WHAT THEY'RE BUYING
Indeed, another familiar sales strategy manages to use concession without first eliciting refusal. In this strategy, a product is offered at a particular price, but then, before the buyer has a chance to respond, the seller adds, "And that's not all!" At that point, either the original price is reduced or a bonus is offered to sweeten the pot. The seller, of course, intends all along to make the so-called concession. This ploy, called the that's-not-all technique, seems transparent, right? Surely no one falls for it, right? Jerry Burger (1986) was not so sure. He predicted that people are more likely to make a purchase when a deal seems to have improved than when thesame deal is offered right from the start. To test this hypothesis, Burger set up a booth at a campus fair and sold cupcakes. Some customers who approached the table were told that the cupcakes cost 75 cents each. Others were told that they cost a dollar, but then, before they could respond, the price was reduced to 75 cents. Rationally speaking, Burger's manipulation did not affect the ultimate price, so it should not have affected sales. But it did. When customers were led to believe that the final price represented a reduction, sales increased from 44% to 73%.
What is informational influence and what consequences does it have? Use Sherif's auto-kinetic
effect study to illustrate.
informational influence-Influence that produces conformity when a person believes others are correct in their judgments.
In 1936, Muzafer Sherif published a classic laboratory study of how norms develop in small groups. His method was ingenious. Male students, who believed they were participating in a visual perception experiment, sat in a totally darkened room. Fifteen feet in front of them, a small dot of light appeared for 2 seconds, after which participants were asked to estimate how far it had moved. This procedure was repeated several times. Although participants didn't realize it, the dot of light always remained motionless. The movement they thought they saw was merely an optical illusion known as the autokinetic effect: In darkness, a stationary point of light appears to move, sometimes erratically, in various directions.feet!). Over the next 3 days, people returned to participate openly in three-person groups. As before, lights were flashed and the participants, one by one, announced their estimates. As shown in l Figure 7.3, initial estimates varied considerably, but participants later converged on a common perception. Eventually, each group established its own set of norms.
What is normative influence and what consequences does it have and
how are the consequences more limited than informational influence?
Influence that produces conformity when a person fears the negative social consequences of appearing deviant.
stray from a group's norm tend to be disliked, rejected, ridiculed, and outright dismissed (Schachter, 1951).
In a series of controlled studies, people who were socially ostracized—for example, by being neglected, ignored, and excluded in a live or online chatroom conversation— react with various types of emotional distress, feeling alone, hurt, angry, and lacking in self-esteem clear: Some people become so distressed when they are rejected, ignored, or excluded from a group, even one that is newly and briefly formed, that they begin to feel numb, sad, angry, or some combination of these emotions. Over time, ostracism becomes a form of social death, making it difficult to cope.
Did Asch's study on line length demonstrate informational or normative influence?What was
INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE (After two uneventful rounds in Asch's study, the participant (seated second from the right) faces a dilemma. The answer he wants to give in the third test of visual discrimination differs from that of the first five confederates, who are all in agreement. Should he give his own answers or conform to theirs?answers. In a control group, where they made judgments in isolation, they made almost no errors. Yet Asch's participants went along with the incorrect majority 37% of the time—far more often than most of us would ever predict. Not everyone conformed, of course. About 25% refused to agree on any of the incorrect group judgments. Yet 50% went along on at least half of the critical presentations and remaining participants conformed on an occasional basis.
Some 15 years after Sherif 's demonstration, Solomon Asch (1951) constructed a very different task for testing how people's beliefs affect the beliefs of others.
visual discriminations. As an example, he asks you and the others to indicate which of three comparison lines is identical in length to a standard line. That seems easy enough. The experimenter then says that after each set of lines is shown, you and the others should take turns announcing your judgments out loud in the order of your seating position. Beginning on his left, the experimenter asks the first person for his judgment. Seeing that you are in the next-to-last position, you patiently await your turn. The opening moments pass uneventfully. The task and discriminations are clear and everyone agrees on the answers. On the third set of lines, however, the first participant selects what is quite clearly the wrong line. Huh? What happened? Did he suddenly lose his mind, his eyesight, or both? Before you have the chance to figure this one out, the next four participants choose the same wrong line. Now what? Feeling as if you have entered the twilight zone, you wonder if you misunderstood the task. And you wonder what the others will think if you have the nerve to disagree. It's your turn now. You rub your eyes and take another look. What do you see? More to the point, what do you do?
Name two elements that each can be added to the procedure in order for
conformity in Asch's study to decrease and what do they tell us about normative influence?
element #1- if the participant had more than one person to agree with them that the others were wrong
element #2-an fMRI scanner while engaged in the task.
What are two different approaches or actions that a numerical minority can use to increase the
likelihood of influencing a majority? Take one of these approaches and explain how it was a
quality of the Civil Rights Movement, which eventually was able to successfully in bringing
about change to the majority and even the Constitution.
To exert influence, says Moscovici, those in the minority must be forceful, persistent, and unwavering in support of their position. Yet at the same time, they must appear flexible and open-minded. Confronted with a consistent but evenhanded dissenter, members of the majority will sit up, take notice, and rethink their own positions.
The tendency to change our perceptions, opinions, or behavior in ways that are consistent with group norms.
The process by which dissenters produce change within a group
Name one group you are a member of. Name one collective you were a part of last week that is
not a group. Provide one example where people that started out as merely a collective became a
GROUPS ARE Much more integrated groups include tight-knit clubs, sports teams, or work teams— groups that engage in very purposeful activities with a lot of interaction over time and clear boundaries of who is in and not in the group.
Group im apart of polictical science society
COLLECTIVE-PEOPLE IN ONE SPACE BUT ARE NOT CLOSELY TOGETHER IN KNOWING ONE ANOTHER On the very low end of this dimension would be people attending a concert or working out near each other in a gym. These often are not considered real groups. Such assemblages are sometimes called collectives—people engaging in a common activity but having little direct interaction with each other (Milgram & Toch, 1969).
What is the role of arousal in social facilitation, why is having other people around arousing and
what does it cause in terms of actions?
Arousal in social facilitation strengthens the dominant response
keeps us alert may be evaluating us
having others around is arousing because it can give that extra juice to perform a well learned task at new heights, performing even better than you would alone
b/c it can cause you to question your abilities in a new task since people are watching and you will probably a difficult task unsucessfuly or not as well as you would had if you were alone
Explain the sequence of things that happen to a bike rider when he or she rides with other people
present as compared to riding alone. What consequence is this going to have for his or her
performance if a novice or an expert cyclist
season. He noticed that cyclists who competed against others performed better than those who cycled alone against the clock. After dismissing various theories of the day (our favorite is "brain worry"), he proposed his own hypothesis: The presence of another rider releases the competitive instinct, which increases nervous energy and enhances performance.
1. The presence of others creates general physiological arousal, which energizes behavior. Based on experimental psychology research and principles of evolution, Zajonc argued that all animals, including humans, tend to become aroused when in the presence of conspecifics—that is, members of their own species. 2. Increased arousal enhances an individual's tendency to perform the dominant response. The dominant response is the reaction elicited most quickly and easily by a given stimulus. 3. The quality of an individual's performance varies according to the type of task. On an easy task (one that is simple or well learned), the dominant response is usually correct or successful. But on a difficult task (one that is complex or unfamiliar), the dominant response is often incorrect or unsuccessful.
However, if you are just learning to play the violin and you are unfamiliar with this arrangement, the presence of others is the last thing you'll want. The increase in arousal should enhance the dominant response, which in this case would be unsuccessful violin playing. When you think about it, this makes intuitive sense. If you are just learning how to perform some complicated task, such as playing the violin or riding a bike, it helps if you are not aroused. In contrast, if you are already good at the task, you may need the extra "juice" that comes from performing in front of others to help you rise to new heights and perform even better than you would if performing alone.
If you were a cockroach facing a difficult maze in order to get to some food, should you invite
your friends to watch (will that help you or hurt your performance) and why?
hurt social loafing
Why does social loafing happen during group projects? Name one thing that teachers do to try to
prevent social loafing and explain why it works
Individuals feel less accountable, and feel efforts not as important
Less individual accountability
-When in a collective that is working toward a single goal, an individual's performance can't be evaluate
Under what circumstances can social loafing actually lead to superior performance? Explain the
entire sequence of how this works.
when the task is difficult and you feeL others will be superior in doing it
What is deindividuation, what circumstances lead to it, and what kinds of behaviors happen
loss of persons sense of individuality and the construction of normal constraints against deviant behavior
when the behavior of a person becomes controlled by external stimuli rather than internal values
a person engages in behavior they wouldn't normally because of being in a grou
The diminished sense of personal responsibility, inhibition, or adherence to social norms that occurs when group members are not treated as individuals.
How does the social identity alternative view of deindividuation explain
how groups can be positive or negative in how they influence behavior
the alternative purposes that wheter deindividuation affects people for bettwe or for worse reflects the charastirstics and norms of the group immedadil surrdinf the idnividau;as well as the groups power to act according to these norms. for example if a group defines itseflf in terms of prejjudice+ hatred against anotehr group deindividuation can ignite violence yet if a groups identify is tied to social change deindiviudationn may proest for social injustice
Describe in detail the (costume) study that illustrated that taking on a social group identity can
influence your behaviors in either pro-social (good) ways or anti-social (bad) ways depending
the norms of the group.
in a study conducted by robert johnson+ leslie downing, females wore garments resembling either robes associated with the kkk or nurses uniformes. half of the participants were individually identyified throughout the study; the other were not all partiicpants were given the opportunity to increase or decrease the itensity of electric shocks
A set of individuals who interact over time and have shared fate, goals, or identity.
According to social identity theory, which was discussed in Chapter 5, an important part of people's feelings of self-worth comes from
their identification with particular groups, and so people care a great deal about being part of groups and about how their groups are valued (Ellemers & Haslam, 2012; Grant & Hogg, 2012; Swann et al., 2012). This is also at the root of why being rejected by a group is one of life's most painful experiences
For humans, attraction to group life serves not only to protect against threat and uncertainty in a physical sense but also to gain a greater sense of personal and social identity.
A process whereby the presence of others enhances performance on easy tasks but impairs performance on difficult tasks.
The tendency for people in a group to exert less effort when pooling their efforts toward attaining a common goal than when individually accountable.
Members of a group decrease the pace or intensity of their own work with the intention of letting other group members work harder.