Upgrade to remove ads
Final Mendolia SOC PSY
Terms in this set (63)
Classic Conformity Research: - Sheif's
Conformity research -informational influence -private acceptance
• Study: subject in a darkened room looking at a point of light believed the light began to move (the auto kinetic effect)
the task doesn't matter, the ppl influence decisions
- ie Asch (Normative conformity)
Line judgement task
• PUBLIC conformity- normative influence
- Situational factors:
• group cohesiveness
• social support
• Personal Factors:
The group gave the wrong answer- but no one conformed when responses wee made privately (confederate present)
It doesn't influence their true feeling if it is privately written down- only when openly agreeing
- Compliance: Getting ppl to say yes to a request
• Cialdini "the psychology influence of persuasion"
• Principles underlying compliance
- 6 basic principles
• friendship/liking: "she seems genuine and nice "
• Commitment/consistency; "I'm committed to the cause"
• Reciprocity- "he helped me so I should return favor"
• Scarcity- "only one left"
• Social validation- "people like me are doing it"
• Authority- " she seems legitimate"
- Techniques using compliance principles
• Friendship/liking• Commitment/consistency- foot in the door and lowball
- Lowball- Cialdini called students asked to participate in the study:
• told 7am first, others asked if they want to participate then told what time
• Bait and switch
(hamburger pic)(sale on limited items)
• YoYo Scam
door in the face and "that's not all"
- Cialdini - take group of students to zoo?
first ask for something big, then give in obligation
• Scarcity- playing hard to get and deadlines
- pennebaker- study at bar; rating ppl on level of attractiveness and later in time
• do others "get prettier at closing time?"
• only for those looking for a late night date
• Social validation
Baiting the tip jar
• Authority rule
symbols or titles
Chance behavior in response to direct orders from authority*Milgram "Obedience to authority
• study in text
- Exposed participants to variety of customer ads
• had either strong or weak arguments
• random clicks (distraction)
- sometimes it enhances sometimes it diminishes
- Distraction enhances persuasion when its a weak argument
- vs distraction diminishes persuasion when its a strong argument
- Study in text (Smith and Shaffer 1991)
• raising drinking age from 19 to 21
- rapid speech
- six arguments that oppose the law
• slow, intermed, or fast wpm
• then asked to rate their agreement with the speaker
- proattitudinal message (something they already agree with)- opposed new law
- counterattitudinal message- favored new law
- fast talking is beneficial when their audience initially agrees with them- more agreement
- figure 8.3 FAVORABLE MINUS THE COUNTERARGUMENTS
- Dual process approach• heuristic-systematic model (HSM)
efforless shortcut )Central route
• Elaboration likelihood model (ELM)
chances they will thinking/considering the message content. What of those variables are going to increase thinking on that message
• Petty et al. 1981
- source vs message effects
• argument: (strong v. weak)
• Source: (expert v. nonexpert)
• relevance- is it important to you or not
Why do we form groups
affiliation and need to belong
Groups- entitativity seen as a collective unit
- How often do they interact?
- is the group important?
- Are they similar?
- What is a group?
- individual output
• when does social presence help or hinder performance
• how do groups influence individual members?
- Group output
• what influences group productivity?
• what is the role of the leader?
Social Facilitation-- Does the mere presence of others affect your performance?
Effect an audience has on performance
- Triplet (1898)
• one of the first social psychological experiments
• forty children were tested under performance conditions.
• they reeled fishing reels while along and while working in compete pairs• Results
- about half of the children performed better in group rather than alone
STUDY: Zajonc, heingartner and herman
- Simple maze
- Complex maze
in a study, cockroaches completed simple mazes more quickly when they ran in the presence of four other cockroaches than when they ran alone. In contrast, cockroaches completed complex mazes more quickly when they ran alone than when they ran in the presence of four other cockroaches
Mere presence of other people increases arousal
- Evaluation apprehension
• Cottrell (1968) - How are you doing?
- Status of cofactors and individual differences
the presence and "how we are doing" then arousal
STUDY: Wack, Sekerk, and Rittle 1968
- Audience can or cannot evaluate
- Evaluative audience
- blindfolded audience
- When concerned about others- evaluation-
Well learned tasks (own shoes)
Novel tasks (lab shoes, socks, and coat)
- Alone, mere presence, attentive
- gets faster when its well learned when they are evaluated
- Slowing down when they are doing an unfamiliar tasks
Robinson Staveley and cooper 1990
Social facilitations as a function of a task
- performing alone or in presence of another person
- OUTCOME of eval that becomes important
- audience that elicits concern, then arousal
cockroach study; mere presence DOES make a diff
- Distraction- conflict
• Baron (1986) Where is your attention?
• the presence of others distracts us, causes conflict, which produces the arousal
GROUP influence (when we belong to the group)
• what is good for the individual may not be good for the group
- Unitary task
everyone is doing something together
• process losses
being in a group reduce (RINGLEMAN STUDY) -have to coordinate effort- diminished performance of the group
- STUDY: ringleman. They pull more weight when they are alone than a 7 and 14 person group
- Can't coordinate or blocking other ppl from contributing
• social loafing
- reduced effort- do less effort in a group than they would alone- why? because if everyone is doing the same thing you can't distinguish who contributed what
• dispensability loss
you feel like you can't contribute anything- won't be noticed.
• sucker effect
You see others giving reduced effort so you don't want to pick up the slack so you give reduced effort
• STUDY:latane' 1979 social loafing
- as groups get larger you feel like you have less responsibility
- Are there motivation gains?
• Make individual contributions identifiable-
• make people feel responsible (social compensation) stronger helping weaker
• STUDY: Social loafing and social compensation: (Williams and Karau 1991) Function of task relevance and partner ability
- Partner (nonexistent) in another room-
- Coactive task- you know everyones performance
- collective- all put together
• We get social loafing when we have strong partners and a collective task- social loafing occurs
• Less social loafing in the co-active task
• social loafing with a strong partner
• social compensations with a weak partner
• motivation loss with irrelevant tasks
To decrease social loafing-
- Increase members' commitment to task
- increases personal relevance/appel
- increase group cohesiveness
- make individ performant identifiable
- make each persons contribution unique
- Integrating social faciliation and social loafing research
• Key variable is whether our performance can be identified and evaluated
Stages of group development (tuckman)
- forming, storming, norming, performing. —then morale
- natural stages the group goes through
- Group output
• Fiedler's contingency model-
• leadership styles
- Task (low LPC leader)- wants to get the task done! (least preferred coworker)
- Social (high LPC leader)- concerned about group relations (least preferred coworker)
- Jerry Burger Study replicating Milgram study
- confederate teacher, participant observing, confederate learner.
• stopped at 150, continued after 150.
• Mean personality scale scores, empathic concern and desire for control
• he was predicting you'd see a difference in this group, but you don't
- they were the same in this study as the milligram paradigm.
How did milgram do it?
- What is it about the situation that causes people to go so far?
- Coercion- Gradually adding 15 volts at a time. A little bit at a time, gradual decisions
Replication and extensions of milligram's research paradigm- Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986, 1995)
They make it VERY clear that if you OBEY the authority you are going to hurt someone (psychological) not physical damage. NOT physically hurting someone
subject has to make disparaging statements per experimenter requests
The harm is that the statements they make is going to influence the interviewers chance of doing well and getting the job but NOT their chances of getting the job.
92% delievered all the insults
- Generalization issue
• Hofling et al. 1966
• Written description: 10/12 said they would not do it
• but 95% did it
Social impact theory- Latane (when ppl are more likely to resist)
- think about 3 factors,
• strength of the source
• immediacy from source to target
• number of targets
• Persuasion- crafted message
- Can others change your attitudes using a message?
- Cognitive dissonance- attitude change yourself
- Dual-Process (cognitive response) approach
what happens while he recipient has the message, and what are they doing that contributes to the change?
Learning and Remembering (Hovland)
- Attitude change follows a series of stages
- internal debate, weighing it. defend against own beliefs
*get message inconsistent with their beliefs, you have to get it, understand it, then accept it.
getting a argument Called (counter argumentation)
Who tells what to whom under what circumstances?"
• who is giving the message gets in the way
• what is the message itself?
• what features of the message may keep you from carrying on the debate
• Mode of delivery
TABLE 8.1 Major finding of a line of persuasion reach conducted by HOVLAND
Identifying variable that get in the way.
Stages of group development (tuckman)
forming, storming, norming, performing. —then morale
natural stages the group goes through
Fiedler's contingency model-
Task (low LPC leader)- wants to get the task done! (least preferred coworker)
Social (high LPC leader)- concerned about group relations (least preferred coworker)
They pull more weight when they are alone than a 7 and 14 person group
Can't coordinate or blocking other ppl from contributing
Baron (1986) Where is your attention?
the presence of others distracts us, causes conflict, which produces the arousal
THIS SET IS OFTEN IN FOLDERS WITH...
Ch 13 Psy 321
Ch 8 vocab psy 321
Psy 321 Ch 14
Psy 321 Mendolia Final Exam
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
Social Psych chapter 7 & 8 (exam 3)
Stage 1 Psychology: Social Behaviour
Social Psychology Practice Exam 3
CHAPTER 9 / Social psyc exam #2
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
Need to study (SPAN 211)
Spanish Test One Terms
Spanish Conversation 2
Chapter 7 Spanish Vocab Span 111