Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social Psychology - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Stereotypes
        A generalization about a group in which certain traits are assigned to virtually all members of the group regardless of action variation among members
        
        Categorize by
        
        what people think is normative (e.g. nurses are female)
        
        what people think is normative in one culture (media influence)
        
        positive & negative
        
        benevolent
        
        hostile
        
        useful & necessary to interpret
        surroundings quickly
        
        Information consistent with stereotypes will be given more attention rehearsed more often & remembered better
    - - Emotions
        
        explicit
        conscious prejudice decline
        
        implicit
        unconscious negative feelings
    - - Discrimination
        unjustified negative or harmful act toward a member of a group solely because of his/her membership
        
        official
        
        subtle
        
        Victims of Discrimination
        
        gender discrimination
        
        bias on hiring students as lag assistatnts
        
        prejudice women "not being naturally equipped"
        
        racial
        
        AfD
        
        War n Drugs
        Shooter Bias
        
        Types of Discrimination
        
        Social Distance: a person's reluctace to get "too close" to another group
        
        Microaggression
        e.g.: contemplating an foreign student for excellent German skills
  - - - Study
        Shih, Pittinsky, Ambady (1999)
        
        Asian women perform worse in math tests when they see themselves as "women" rather than as "Asians"
        
        if you indicate race, blacks perform poorer, white performance is not different
    - - Study Racist Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
        Word, Zanna, Cooper (1974)
        
        white students interviewed job applicants
        → display of discomfort, sat farther away, ended interview sooner when interviewing Blacks
        
        White applicants were treated the way White/Black applicants in prior experiment were treated
        → The "Black"-interview treatment resulted in the applicants being more nervous, less effective
  - - - Social Identity
        part of self-concept that is based on identification with certain groups
      - Ethnocentrism
        the belief that one's own group is superior to others
        
        universal
        
        we create an "Us" → others are "Not-Us"
      - In-Group Bias
        the tendency to favor in-group-members
        
        even for temporal/trivial or significant groups
      - Out-Group Homogenity
        the perception that individuals in out-group are more similar to each other (homogenous) than in-group members
      - Blaming the victim
        the tendency to blame individuals for their victimization - typically motivated by the desire of a fair world
        
        the stronger the belief in a fair world, the more tendency to blame individuals
        
        often for people who rarely experienced discrimination
    - - Ageism
        both, young and old, complain that they are victim of age discrimination
      - Economic & Political Competition
        when unemployment rises, so does resentment against minorities
      - Study
        Sherif et al.
        Boy scout camp
        
        assigned to different groups
        
        increase group cohesion & create conflict-situation
        
        -> use of Contact Hypothesis & 6 conditions
        -> groups found back together
  - - - 6 conditions to reduce prejudice
        
        Interdependence
        
        Common goal
        
        Equal status
        
        Opportunity for informal contact
        
        Chance to interact with multiple members of the out-group rather than a "token"
        
        Social norms of equality
- - - - Testosterone
      - Objections
        
        Kitten & Rat
        
        instincts exist
        
        instincts can be changed by sociocultural interactions
        
        Chimps
        
        Bonobos
        "make love not war"
        → exception
      - boys are more aggressive than girls
    - - Influences on aggression
        
        peaceful vs war-areas
        
        hunters vs warriors
        
        collectivist vs individualistic cultures
        
        farming vs herding cultures
    - - Men
        
        physical aggression
      - Women
        
        relational aggression
    - - Social Cognitive Learning Theory
        people learn social behavior through observation & imitation of others and by cognitive processes such as plans, expectations and beliefs
      - Aggressive Role Models
        Study: Bandura, Ross, Ross
        Will watching an aggressive model cause children to behave aggressively?
        → children imitated aggressive adults
    - - Alcohol
        
        Reduces anxiety and inhibitions
        
        less cautious
        
        Disrupts information processing
        
        respond to earliest & more obvious aspects
        
        "Think drink"
        
        Expectations about alcohol-effects will influence behavior
      - Pain
        if an animal is in pain it will rather act aggressive than to flee
      - Discomfort
        
        heat, humidity, air pollution, offensive odors
        → warm temperatures → increased likelihood of violent crime & aggressive acts
  - - - Factors on Frustration
        
        Closeness to goal
        
        Unexpectedness of frustration
      - Frustration-Aggression Link depends on
        
        Proximity of person
        
        size & strength of person responsible for frustration
        
        person's ability to retaliate (fight back)
        
        whether Frustration is
        
        understandable
        
        legitimate
        
        unintentional
    - - Retaliation
        
        harsh criticism → retaliation
        
        perception of unintentional aggression → no retaliation
    - - Weapon Effect
        Berkowitz & Le Page (1967)
        increase in aggression that can occur because of the mere presence of a gun or other weapon
        
        angering participants
        
        in presence of gun OR badminton racket
        
        administering electric shocks to fellow students
        
        stronger shocks when in presence of gun
        
        "finger pulls trigger, but trigger pulls finger"
  - - - Direction of Causality
        
        aggressive people may prefer violent TV
        
        watching violent TV may make people aggressive
      - Third Variable Effect
        
        effect is stronger on violent users/viewers
  - - - Carthasis & Aggression
        "get it out of your system" is not existent
        
        aggressive behavior increases aggression even further
      - Blaming the Victim
        participants who inflict harm on an innocent person
        
        derogate victims
        
        makes it easier to harm the victim even further in future
      - Punishment of Aggression
        
        may backfire if punishment is aggressive
        
        punishment may be the attention seeked for
        
        -> does not communicate what to do but what not to do
- - - - Group Diversity
        
        attraction between similar others
        
        operate in ways that encourage similarity between members
        
        homogeneity
        → more cohesive
        diversity
        → better performance
  - - - Cockroach Study
        Zajonc & colleagues 1969
        bright light at end of runway for cockroaches
        
        faster when others were watching
        
        simple task
        others watching → faster than alone
        difficult task
        others watching → slower than alone
        //pressure on the individual
      - Presence of others increases psychological arousal
        
        other people raise attention → mild arousal
        
        fear of being judged/evaluated → mild arousal
        
        others are disturbance/shared attention increases arousal == like non-social distraction
    - - studies
        
        warriors who hid their identities before going to battle were more likely to kill/torture
        
        deindividuation increases extent to which people obey to group norms
        
        individual feels less responsible for action
      - Deindividuation Online
        
        anonymity
        → feeling less inhibited on social media
  - - - likelihood of groupthink
        higher when group is
        
        highly cohesive
        
        isolated from contrary opinions
        
        rules by a directive leader
        
        high stress
        
        poor decision-making procedures
      - Bay of Pigs Invasion
        Kennedy sent CIA trained group to lead mass uprising against Fidel Castro -> failed
        
        advisory team = homogenous group
        
        recently elected == without much experience
        
        lacked discussing concepts
        
        not thinking twice
      - symptoms of groupthink
        
        Illusion of invulnerability
        
        belief in moral correctness of group
        
        stereotyped views of out-group
        
        self-censorship
        
        direct pressure on disserters to conform
        
        illusion of unanimity
        
        illusion that everybody agrees
        
        mindgruads
        
        group members protect the leader from contrary viewpoints
      - defective decision making
        
        incomplete survey of alternatives
        
        failure to examine risks of the favored alternative
        
        poor information search
        
        failure to develop contingency plans
      - Act against groupthink
        leader should
        
        remain impartial
        
        seek outside opinions
        
        create subgroups
        
        seek anonymous opinions
    - - reasons
        persuasive arguments interpretation
        arguments that have not been considered by some members of a group lead to more extreme positions of the whole group
        Social comparison interpretation
        group members evaluate the other member's position; because they want to be liked, they decide to take the same position in a slightly more extreme way to present himself/herself in a positive light
    - - Great Person Theory
        the idea that key personality traits make a person a good leader regardless of the situation
        leaders tend to be more:
        
        intelligent
        
        charismatic
        
        open to new experience
        
        confident in their leadership
        
        assertive
      - Leadership styles
        
        Transactional Leaders
        
        set clear goals
        
        short-term goals
        
        reward people who meet goals
        → making things run smoothly
        
        Transformational Leaders
        
        common goals
        
        long term goals
        
        think outside the box
        
        inspire followers
        
        → combination of both styles is most effective
        
        Contingency Theory of Leadership
        idea that effectiveness of a leader depends both on how
        
        task-oriented
        
        relationship-oriented
        
        leader is & the amount of control the leader has over the group
        
        Task-oriented leader
        focus on getting the job done
        Relationship oriented Leaders
        focus on relationship with workers & workers feelings
  - - - Prisoners Dilemma
        lack of trust → escalating series of competitive moves so that in the end no one wins
        
        Resolving
        Naming "Wall Street game" → "community game" ⇒ increased cooperation (framing)
        "Tit-For-Tat Strategy"
        encouraging cooperation by at first acting cooperatively but then always responding the way your opponent did on previous trial (cooperatively VS competitively)
        → if used by both sides == must effective strategy
    - - Resolution
        communication
        
        if talking was allowed no dramatic increase in profits occurred
        -> direct instruction to communicate increased cooperation
- - - - Stereotypes
        A generalization about a group in which certain traits are assigned to virtually all members of the group regardless of action variation among members
        
        Categorize by
        
        what people think is normative (e.g. nurses are female)
        
        what people think is normative in one culture (media influence)
        
        positive & negative
        
        benevolent
        
        hostile
        
        useful & necessary to interpret
        surroundings quickly
        
        Information consistent with stereotypes will be given more attention rehearsed more often & remembered better
    - - Emotions
        
        explicit
        conscious prejudice decline
        
        implicit
        unconscious negative feelings
      - Conditioning
        
        Operand Conditioning
        frequent behavior based on reward/punishment
        
        Classical Conditioning
        emtional response is repeatidly paired with neutral stimulus
      - Traits
        
        do not result from a rational examination of the issue
        
        are not governed by logic
        
        are often linked to people's values so that efforts to change them challenge those values
  - - - Attitude Accessibility
        the strength of the association between an attitude object and a person's evaluation of that object, measured by the speed with which the people can report how they feel about the object
    - - Theory of Planned Behavior
        people's intentions are the best predictors of their deliberate behaviors, which are determined by their
        
        attitudes towards specific behaviors
        
        subjective norms
        
        perceived behavioral control
        
        Attitude towards behavior
        specific not general attitude towards the behavior
        
        Subjective Norms
        beliefs about how other people they care about will view he behavior in question
        
        Perceived behavioral control
        ease with which people believe they can perform the behavior
  - - - Source of Communication
        how expert the speaker is
      - Communication itself
        quality of arguments
      - Audience
        hostile or friendly
      - Elaboration Likelihood Model
        a model explaining two ways in which persuasive communications can cause attitude change
        
        Central Route
        when
        
        people are motivated
        
        people have the ability to pay attention
        → listen carefully to and think about arguments presented
        
        Peripheral Route
        when
        
        people do not pay attention
        
        do not elaborate
        
        are swayed by surface characteristics
        
        Steps:
        
        Motivation?
        
        no: Peripheral Cue?
        
        no: ambivalence / weak negative change
        
        yes: weak positive change
        
        yes: Ability?
        
        no: Peripheral Cue?
        
        no: ambivalence / weak negative change
        
        yes: weak positive change
        
        yes: type of argument?
        
        no: Ambivalence OR Boomerang Effect
        
        Strong positive change
        
        Motivation to pay attention
        
        personal relevance of topic
        
        Need for cognition
        
        personality variable to which extent people engange in & enjoey effortful cognitive activities
        
        high need for cognition: Central route
        
        Low need for cognition: Rely on Peripheral cues
        
        Ability to pay attention
        inability to pay attention → swayed more by peripheral cues
        
        status of communicator
        
        liking/trusting communicator
        
        someone with a weak argument can still be persuasive if they distract their audience (magic tricks)
        
        //the more marketing, the more distracted, the better every marketing works
    - - Fear Arousing Communications
        persuasive message that attempts to change people's attitudes by arousing their fears
        works if fear influences ability to
        
        pay attention
        
        process arguments
        
        instructions are given on how to behave to reduce fear
      - Heuristic-Systematic Model of Persuasion
        how persuasive communication can cause attitude change:
        
        systematically processing arguments
        
        using mental shortcuts or heuristics
        
        "How do I feel about it?-Heuristic"
        identifying attitude by one's own feeling about an object
        Problem:
        
        possible mistakes about what is causing mood
        
        misattribute feelings created by one source to another
        -> bad decisions might result
- - - - Independent View
        individualistic cultures
        defining oneself in terms of one's own internal thoughts, feelings, actions
        -> independence & uniqueness valued
      - Interdependent View
        collectivistic cultures
        defining oneself in terms of one's relationship to other people
        recognizing that one's behavior is often determined by the the thoughts, feelings & actions of others
    - - Self Knowledge
        the way we understand who we are and formulate and organize this information
      - Self-Control
        the way we make plans & execute decisions
      - Impression management
        the way we present urselves to other people an get them to see us the way we want to be seen
      - Self Esteem
        the way in which we try to maintain positive views of ourselves
  - - - Self-Awareness Theory
        the idea that when people focus their attention on themselves they evaluate and compare their behavior to their internal standards and values
        
        Can Do
        -> Will Do
        
        Cannot Do
        -> will feel uncomfortable
        
        Self Focus
        positive
        
        experiencing major success
        
        reminding of sense of right & wrong
        
        negative
        attempts to escape the self
        
        focus on self can be very aversive
        
        negative
        
        alcohol abuse
        
        binge eating
        
        sexual machochism
        
        self-expressive
        
        religion
        
        spirituality
        
        the more people said to think of themselves the more likely they were to be in a bad mood
      - Steps of Introspection
        
        self-focusing cue in environment
        
        cue creates a state of self-awareness
        
        compare current behavior to internal standards / expectations for yourself Do they match?
        
        Yes: Everything is fine
        2.No:
        
        Change behavior so it matches your standards for yourself
        
        You cannot/won't change behavior -> flee from state of self-awareness
      - Causal Theories
        the causes of one's own feelings and behaviors
        -> cultural
        
        Consequences of introspection about reason
        
        Reasons-generated attitude change
        attitude change resulting from thinking about the reasons for one's attitudes
        
        people assume, that their attitudes math the reasons that are plausible and easy to verbalize
        
        Study
        Wilson & Kraft 1993
        
        participants writing reasons why relationship is going the way it is
        
        positive reasons → attitude became positive
        
        negative reasons → attitude became negative
    - - Self-Perception Theory
        when attitudes and feelings are uncertain or ambigous we infer these states by observing our behavior and the situation in which it occurs
        
        Motivation
        
        Intrinsic Motivation
        the desire to engage in an activity because we enjoy if or find it interesting, not because of external factors
        
        Extrinsic Motivation
        the desire to engane in an activity because of external rewards or pressures not because we enjoy the task or find it interesting
        
        Intrinsic vs Extrinsic
        
        Overjustification Effect
        The tendency for people to view their behavior as caused by compelling extrinsic reasons, making them underestimate the extent to which it was caused by intrinsic reasons
        //cognition change by cognitive dissonance
        
        Rewards
        rewards will undermine interest if interest was initially high
        
        type of reward
        
        Performance-Contingent Rewards
        rewards based on how well we perform a task
        
        less damaging to intrinsic interest
        
        Task-Contingent rewards
        rewards for that the task was done regardless of how well the task was done
      - Mindset
        
        Fixed Mindset
        idea that we have a set amount of ability that cannot change
        
        Growth Mindset
        idea that our abilities are malleable qualities that we can cultivate & grow
      - Two Factor Theory of Emotion
        idea that emotional experiences are the result of
        
        experience physiological arousal
        
        seek an appropriate explanation
        
        -> emotions depend on our explanation for arousal
        
        Misattribution of Arousal
        process whereby mistakes are made about what is causing them to feel the way they do
        
        Study
        Schachter & Signer 1962
        injecting participants with adrenalin but are told it is a vitamin compound
        
        physiological arousal
        
        side-effect informed
        
        not informed about side-effects
        
        placebo
        
        environmental cues (mmod of "stooge")
        
        euphoric
        
        angry
        
        informed group / euphoric:
        
        subjects interpret arousal as drug-side effects
        informed group / angry
        
        subjects interpret anger as drug-side effects
        uninformed group / euphoric
        
        subjects interpret arousal as emotional & join euphoric behavior
        uninformed group / angry
        
        subjects interpret arousal as emotional & join angry behavior
    - - When do you engage in social comparison?
        
        when there are no objective standards to measure against
        
        when we experience uncertainty
      - With whom do you choose to compare yourself?
        
        initial impulse with anyone around
        
        occurs quickly & automatically
        
        Self Esteem moderates this comparison
        
        Upward Social Comparison
        comparing to people who are better than we are with regard to a particular trait / ability
        
        Goal: Know the furthest level to which we can aspire
        
        Downward Social Comparison
        comparing to people who are worse than we are with regard to a particular trait/ability
        
        Goal: feel better about ourselves
  - - - Ingratiation
        the process whereby people flatter, praise or generally try to make themselves likable to another person, often of higher status
      - Self-handicapping
        the strategy whereby people create obstacles and excuses for themselves so that if they do poorly on a task, they can avoid blaming themselves
        
        Behavioral handicapping
        //go to party before exam
        
        Reported self-handicapping
        // do not feel well, shyness, physical symptoms
  - - - Terror Management Theory
        *self-esteem serves as a buffer, protecting people from terrifying thoughts about their own mortality
      - Narcissism
        the combination of excessive self-love and a lack of empathy toward others
- - - - Postdecision Dissonance Study
        Jack Brehm 1956
        consumer product study: women rated a product worse after rejecting it
        
        rating items
        
        receiving one out of two equally rated items as reward
        
        rating items again
        -> the chosen alternative was rated more attractive & the rejected alternative was rated less attractive
      - Permanence of Decision Study
        Knox & Inkster 1968
        horse better:
        as soon as decision is made the chances of their bet were rated higher than the chances of the one's that did not decide yet
        
        more important decisions → more dissonance
        
        greater permanence → more dissonance
        
        Illusion of Irrevocability
        Technique of Lowballing
        
        salesperson inducing to agree on a purchase to a very low price
        
        claims it was an error & raises the price
        → Sense of commitment triggers the anticipation of an exciting event
      - Justification of Effort
        the tendency for individuals to increase their liking for something they have worked hard to attain
        
        Study
        Justification of Effort Experiment
        Aronson & Mills 1959
        
        admission to "psychology of sex" -class
        
        screening procedure
        
        very unpleasent
        
        mildly unpleasant
        
        no screening
        -> severity of initiation predicts more positive ratings of the discussion quality
        
        External vs Internal Justification
        
        Internal Justification
        the reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself (e.g. attitude/behavior)
        
        External Justification
        a reason or explanation for dissonant personal behavior that resides outside the individual (e.g. to receive a large reward/avoid punishment
        
        Study
        Festinger & Carlsmith 1959
        
        participants taking part in dull experiment
        
        experimenter paid students to tell lie to next participant ("very exciting experiment")
        
        large external justification: 20$ -> did not make people believe the lie
        
        small external justification: 1$ did lead to believing the lie
        
        Counterattidunal Advocacy
        stating an opinion or attitude that runs counter to one's private belief or attitude
        "does this dress look nice on me?"
        -> seek to reduce dissonance by justifying our action
        
        external justification
        
        internal justification == change in beliefs
        
        Justifying Good Deeds & Harmful Acts
        dissonance theory predicts:
        
        if we dislike someone but do them a favor we will like them more
        
        -> change attitude about person to resolve dissonance
        Ben Franklin Effect
        
        Study
        Jecker & Landy 1969
        do someone a personal favor
        → feel more positive towards that person than
        
        without favor
        
        because of impersonal request
        
        Immorality
        moral dilemmas → involve powerful implications for one's self-esteem
        → dissonance reduction following a difficult moral decision can cause people to behave either more/less ethical in the future
        
        Ex. Cheating on a test
        
        Decide to cheat on test
        reduce dissonance:
        
        change attitude → future behavior is probably less ethical
        
        change behavior -> future behavior probably more ethical
        
        decide not to cheat
        
        post decision dissonance: better grade would have been possible
        
        change in attitude: to justify giving up a bad grade → convince yourself of stronger morality of action → attitude becomes more extreme
        
        Threat of Punishment
        
        severe punishment == strong external justification for changing behavior
        
        Need of Self Persuasion
        
        mild punishment == insufficient external justification for behavior-change → need for internal justification
        == "Self-Persuasion"
        
        → devaluing forbidden activity/object
        
        1 more item...
        
        Hypocrisy Induction
        arousal of dissonance by having individuals make statements that run counter to their behaviors and then reminding them of the inconsistency between advocation & behavior
        → leads to more responsible behavior
        //condom study
        //friends informing you about misbehavior
- - - - Kin Selection
        the idea that behaviors that help a genetic relative are favored by natural selection
        
        Empirical support
        
        more wanting to help genetic relatives than non-relatives in life-and-death situations
        
        helping family-members > helping friends
        
        but not in unthreatening situations
      - Reciprocity Norm
        the expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future
        "I help you now, and you will do me a favor when I need help"
        
        cooperation in groups → higher survival chances
        
        Assumption that norm of reciprocity norm are genetically based
    - - Reward of Helping
        
        investment in future
        
        relieve of personal distress of a bystander
        
        gain social rewards from others
        
        feelings of self-worth
      - Costs of Helping
        
        physical danger
        
        pain
        
        embarrassment
        
        takes much time
    - - Empathy
        the ability to put oneself in the shoes of another person and to experience events and emotions the way that person experiences
      - Steps
        
        observe needed help
        
        feel empathy?
        
        No
        
        help only if it is in your self interest
        reward > cost
        
        Yes
        
        help based without self-interest
        costs > rewards
      - Study
        Toi & Batson 1982
        participants listening to radio-shop pilot with personal story of Carol
        helping with work Carol missed in introductory psychology class
        
        high empathy -> helped regardless of costs
  - - - Usual Determinants
        
        Gender
        men:
        
        dramatic
        
        heroic acts
        
        women:
        
        help in long-term relationships
        
        nurturing/caring
        
        social support
        
        volunteering work
        
        Culture
        In-Group
        help when we feel empathy
        → more altruism
        Out-Group
        help when it furthers self-interest
        →
        
        Religion & Prosocial Behavior
        only more likely to help others that share their beliefs
        
        Altruistic Personality
        The qualities that cause an individual to help others in a wide variety of situations
      - Situational Determinants
        
        Current mood
        Good mood:
        
        make us look on the bright side of life
        
        helping prolongs our good mood
        
        good moods increase self-attention
        
        finding coin → 84% helping a man picking up papers
        
        Negative Mood
        
        Guilt → increase in helping
        
        situational pressures
        
        Urban Overload Hypothesis
        the theory that people living in cities are constantly bombarded with stimulation and that they keep to themselves to avoid being overwhelmed by it
        urban dwellers in clam environment →
        more likely to reach out to others
        
        Residential Mobility
        residing in one place
        
        greater attachment to community
        
        more interdependence to neighbors
        
        greater concern with one's reputation in the community
        
        //also works for shared flats
        
        Bystander Effect
        the more bystanders who observe an emergency, the less likely any one is to help
        
        Study
        Latané & Darley 1970
        students discussing via intercom system
        one has a seizure crying for help
        → the more proposed listeners the less likely they helped
        
        Bystander Intervention Decision Tree
        
        2.
        interpret the event
        inefficient with:
        
        Pluralistic Ignorance
        
        Pluralistic Ignorance
        the case in which people think that everyone else is interpreting a situation in a certain way, when in fact they are not
        
        5.
        implementation decision
        
        not qualified
        
        afraid of
        
        making yourself a fool
        
        doing the wrong thing
        
        placing yourself in danger
        
        4.
        know appropriate form of assistance
        issues with:
        
        identifying given situation
        
        knowing the right assistance to give
        
        -> lack of knowledge/competence
        
        assume responsibility
        
        issues with:
        
        Diffusion of responsibility
        
        Diffusion of Responsibility
        phenomenon wherein each bystander's sense of responsibility to help decreases as the number of witnesses increases
        
        1.
        notice the event
        inefficient when:
        
        distracted
- - - - highly effortful
      - based on
        
        monitor process
        looks for hints that the unwanted thought is on the way to the conscious mind
        
        operator process
        effortful and conscious attempt to find something different to think of
      - operator process shuts down in stressfull situations
    - - slow
      - controllable
      - high effort
      - hard to retrieve
      - voluntary
    - - Harkness, DeBono & Borgida 1985
        participants receive info about somebody & potential dating matches
        
        high involvement condition -> wanted to date him
        
        low involvement -> were not told that they would date this person
        
        High involvement groups used more complex strategies for estimation of persons dating preferences and tended to be more accurate
  - - - Mental Shortcuts
        
        schema
        
        if
        
        no schema at hand
        
        too many schemas
        
        Heuristics
        
        Schemas
        
        organize what we know
        
        interpret new situations
        
        consequences
        
        memory
        
        influence on selection & interpretation of information
        
        may ignore conscience information that doesn't fit
        
        fills gaps if smth. is missing
        
        guide attention
        
        Self Fulfilling Prophecy
        
        you have an impression of smbd
        
        you treat tehm based on this impression
        
        they react based on the treatment
        -> reaction fits your first impressuin & fulfills it
        
        Studies
        
        treatment of schoolchildren based on previous (fake-)test-results (Rosenthal & Jacobsen)
        
        Madon, Jussin & Eccles
        teachers act to conform their low expectations of minority / disadvantaged students
        1997/McKown,Weinstein 2008)
        
        children performed worse 10 years later
        
        how to avoid
        reflect on own stereotypes like culture, gender profession, ...
        
        Study - person perception
        Harold Kelley 1950
        biographical note about guest lecturer
        
        cold person description-> negative rating
        
        warm person description -> positive rating (even in areas with missing knowledge)
        
        higher participation
        
        Judgmental Heuristics
        mental shortcuts people use to make judgements quickly & efficiently
        pro:
        
        time saving
        
        usually good decisions in short time
        
        con:
        
        can lead to erroneous inferences about world
        
        Availability Heuristic
        judgement is based on the ease with which you can bring something to mind
        
        Studies
        
        Tversky & Kahnemann 1974
        Does the letter happen to appear more often as the first letter in a word (like in “rock”) or more often as the third letter in a word (like in “garden")?
        
        Schwartz et al. 1991
        remember 6/12 situations of being assertive/unassertive
        → feeling more or less assertive about themselves depending on ease of retrieval of assertive/unassertive moments
        
        Pro
        what we remember is more important to us
        
        con
        heuristic is also active for rare & traumatic cases
        
        Representative Heuristics
        classification on similarity to a typical case
        
        base rate
        
        Studies
        
        Tversky & Kahnemann 1974
        Imagine you throw a coin six times which sequence is more likely?
        
        Base Rate Information
        Information about the relative frequency of members of different categories in the population
        
        Anchoring / Adjustment Heuristic
        People start with an implicitly suggested reference point (the "anchor") and make adjustments to it to reach their estimate; adjustments can be insufficient.
        )
        
        Studies
        
        Englich & Mussweiler 2001
        influence of an anchor in punishment on judges by non-professionals
        
        Tversky & Kahnemann 1974
        random number influences guessing as an anchor point (African countries in UNO
      - Biases
        
        Optimistic Bias
        
        everything will be fine
        
        leads to over...
        → Problem: planning fallacy
        
        Negativity Bias
        
        better memory of negative information
        (threatening faces > others)
      - Best Decisions
        
        need of a conscious goal
        
        setting an agenda
        
        distraction to integrate complex info
      - influenced by
        
        Metaphors
        
        Studies
        Jostman, Lakens & Schubert
        
        heavy & light clipboard for important decisions
        
        Liljenquist, Zhong & Galinsky
        
        donation amount in a citrus scented room
    - - Reasons for Priming
        //makes schemas accessible
        
        past experience
        
        related to current goal
        
        thoughts & experience right before primes on following situation
      - Studies
        
        identify colors & learn words
        Higgens, Roles & Jones 1977
        
        different words & change experience to a later introduced person
        
        priming on polite & impolite words
        Bargh, Chen & Burrows 1996 / Baron 2006
        The participants primed for impoliteness interrupted the experimenter more often
    - - positive
        
        cognitive resources are limited
        -> automate though processes
      - negative
        
        very strict
        
        inflexible way of thinking CAN lead to misjudgements
- - - - Sociology takes a macro view while social psychology looks at the individual
    - - personal differences
        
        lead to underestimation of social influences
        
        prisoners dilemma
  - - - motivation
        
        behavior
      - implicit processes
- - - - Propinquity Effect
        the finding that the more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to become our friends
        
        Mere Exposure Effect
        The finding that the more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more apt we are to like it.
        Propinquity works because of familarity & mere exposure
        
        Studies
        Moreland & Beach 1992
        female confederates visiting seminars in different frequencies sitting in first row
        → linear relationshi8p between frequency of visits & attraction-scores
        Back, Schmuckle & Egloff 2008
        fixed seats for students in a classroom
        → attraction of close neighbors
        
        Study
        Festinger et al. 1950
        
        apartment complex for married students
        -Asking who their closest friends are
        
        65% lived in same building
        
        41% door to door
        
        22% twi doors away
        
        10% on the other end of floor
        
        → Functional Distance > Physical Distance
      - Similarity
        A match in interests, attitudes, values, background or personality
        
        Similarity VS Complimentary
        
        Opinions & Personality Study
        Newcomb 1961
        randomly assign male students to be roommates in dormitory
        → similar attitudes/values and geographical similarity predict friendship
        
        Factors
        
        Interests & Experiences
        
        you are in situations that you choose to be in -> just as the people around chose to be in this situation
        
        Tracking: more friends inside own track
        
        Students shared experiences in one track promote attraction
        
        Similarity
        
        we tend to think that similar people like us
        
        we receive social acceptance for our characteristics and attitudes
        
        Appearance
        Physical similarity and seating choice
        
        students with glasses
        
        similar attractiveness-level in dating
        
        Genetics
        friends tend to have more similar DNA than do strangers (correlation)
        
        Perceived Similarity
        Perceived similarity is more important for long term relationships than actual similarity
        
        Lack of Similarity
        One-Night-Stands, Hook-Ups, Flings
        → dissimilar partners are preferred over similar partners
      - Reciprocal Liking
        We like to be liked
        → can make up for the absence of similarity
        
        features
        
        reciprocal liking > disagreement on important issues
        
        most crucial determinant of whether we will like somebody is the extent to which we believe we are liked by that person
        
        liking can neutralize tendency to pay attention to attractive faces
        
        Self Fulfilling Prophecy of liking
        
        only for people with high self-esteem
      - Average Face
        see physical attractiveness
    - - Study
        Elaine Winter 1966
        randomly matching dance partners at student orientation week dance party
        → physical attractiveness > intelligence/independence/sensitivity/sincerity
        as determinant of wanting to see the other again
        
        Meta-Study:
        men value attractiveness more
        
        attitudes > behavior
      - What-Is-Beautiful-Is-Good-Stereotype
        
        Halo Effect
        a cognitive bias by which we tend to assume that in individual with one positive characteristic also possesses other (even unrelated) positive characteristics
        attractive ->
        
        earn more
        
        better evaluation
        
        win elections
      - What is attractive?
        
        Female Beauty Standard
        
        large eyes
        
        small nose
        
        small chin
        
        prominent cheekbones
        
        high eyebrows
        
        large pupils
        
        big smile
        → Baby-Schema > maturity-aspects
        
        Male beauty Standard
        
        large eyes
        
        prominent cheekbones
        
        large chin
        
        big smile
        
        Cultural Standards
        
        different cultures largely agree on what is beautiful
        
        infants prefer attractive faces to unattractive ones
        
        Symmetry
        "facial symmetry is an indicator for "good" genes" (Jones 2001)
        
        Average > Extreme
        Morphing faces → typical & familiar faces result → high attractiveness level
        
        more attractive originals result in more attractive morphs
        
        opposite sex-clones seem very attractive
      - Self-Fulfilling Prophecy & Attraction
        the beautiful
        
        receive more social attention
        → develop social skills
        
        highly attractive people
        
        develop good social skills
        
        report having more satisfying interactions with others
        
        Imagining opposite phone-partner is attractive -> elicit, warmer, friendlier responses
    - - Evolutionary Psychology
        the attempt to explain social behavior in terms of genetic factors have evolved over time according to principles if natural selection
      - Women
        face high reproductive costs
        → look for a man who can supply the resources and support to raise children
        Men
        look for a woman who appears capable for reproduction
      - DISCUSSION
        Nature (inborn preferences) VS Nurtute (cultural norms & gender roles)
  - - - Secure Attachment Style
        
        trust
        
        lack of concern of being abandoned
        
        view that one is worthy and well-liked
      - Avoidant Attachment Style
        
        difficulty developing intimate relationships
        
        because previous attempts to be intimate have been rebuffed
      - Anxious/Ambivalent Attachment Style
        
        concern that other will not reciprocate one's desire for intimacy
        -> higher-than-average levels of anxiety
      - Impact of Attachment-Styles Study
        Simpson et al. 1992
        fresh heterosexual couples / womens are informed that they have to undergo fear-inducing procedure
        
        secure females seek support
        
        avoidant females resile
        
        secure males offered more support than males with avoidant attachment styles
      - Matching of Attachment Styles
        
        secure-secure
        
        anxious/ambivalent female + avoidant male
        
        problems are attributed to gender roles
        
        avoidant female & anxious/ambivalent male → short relationships
        
        //attachment styles might change
    - - Social Exchange Theory
        the idea that people's feelings about a relationship depend on their perception of
        
        its rewards and costs
        
        the kind of relationship they deserve
        
        their chances for having a better relationship with someone else
        
        Rewards
        positive, gratifying aspects of relationship
        Costs
        negative aspects of relationship
        Outcome
        comparison of rewards vs costs
        Comparison Level
        expectation about level of rewards & costs they are likely to receive in a particular relationship
        → leads to relationship satisfaction
        Comparison Level for Alternatives
        expectation about level of rewards and costs they would receive in an alternative relationship
        → leads to relationship satisfaction (or not)
        
        Equity Theory
        The idea that people are happiest with relationships in which the rewards and costs experienced by both parties are roughly equal
        
        Inquitable relationships
        
        Over-benefited
        -lots of rewards, few costs
        -devote little time/energy to relationship
        
        Under-benefited
        
        few rewards, high costs
        
        devote a lot of time/energy to relationship
        
        long vs short term relationships
        the more we get to know someone
        
        the more reluctant we are to blieve that we are simply exchanging favors
        
        the less inclined we are to expect immediate compensation for a favor
        
        Exchange & Communal Relationships
        
        Exchange Relationships
        governed by the need for equity (i.e. for an equal ratio of rewards & costs
        
        like to be repaid immediately
        
        feel exploited when favors are not returned
        
        keep track of who is contributing what to relationship
        
        being able to help another person has no effect on owns mood
        
        Communal relationships
        primary concern: being responsive to the other person's needs
        
        do not like to be repaid immediately
        
        do not feel exploited when favors are not returned
        
        do not keep track of who is contributing what to relationship
        
        being able to help another person puts us in a good mood
        
        → not unconcerned with Equity
      - Investment Model of Commitment
        people's commitment to a relationship depends not only on their satisfaction with the relationship but also on how much they have invested in the relationship that would be lost by ending it
      - Rewards + Costs → Satisfaction with relationship
        Level of investment in R + Quality of alternatives to R + Staisfaction with R -> Commitment to R -> Stability of R
- - - - Classic Milgram Shock-Experiment
        Milgram 1974
        confederate as "learner" being fake-punished by participants as "teacher" for wrong answers by electric shocks
        experimenter whenever participants stopped: "please go on"
        →
        62.5% gave shocks until the end of 450 Volts
        Why?
        
        not wanting to disappoint experimenter
        
        insistent experimenter → difficult to say no
        
        Variations due to ethical concerns
        2 confederate teachers which disobey at different steps
        10% give maximum shocks
        
        free to leave, why not?
        
        situation is ambigous/crisis -> other people have expertise
        
        Replication
        Burger 2009
        
        changed procedures:
        
        stopping study at 150 Volts -> reduced psychological distress
        
        Disobedience at this point
        
        pre-screened participants
        
        repeated info that leaving at any time is okay
        
        Results
        
        70% obeyed at 150 Volts
        → difference is statistically insignificant
      - Why we obey
        
        self-justification
        
        conform to wrong norm
        
        Loss of personal responsibility
    - - deviant group
        members are often
        
        ridiculed
        
        punished
        
        rejected
      - being deprived feels
        
        stressful
        
        traumatic
        
        psychologically painful
    - - Injunctive Norms
        peoples perception of what behaviors are approved or disapproved of by others
        always effective
      - Descriptive Norms
        people's perceptions of how people behave in given situations, regardless of whether the behavior is approved/disapproved of by others
        effective depending on environment
      - Littering in Parking Lot Study
        Reno, Cialdini & Kallgren 1993
        confederate walking by a parking lot
        
        control group: confederate walking by
        → 37% littered handbill from windshield
        
        descriptive condition: confederate dropping fast-food bag
        → only effective in clean environment
        
        injunctive condition: confederate picked up littered fast-food bag
        → effective in any environment
    - - Asch Line Study
        1956
        
        participants guessing which lines had the same length
        -> 1/3 went along with majority
        ==> public compliance without private acceptance
    - - Social Impact Theory
        The idea that conforming to social influence depends on the group's importance, immediacy and number of people in the group*
        
        Likelihood to respond to normative social influence
        
        Immediacy
        how close is the group to you in space & time during the attempt to influence you?
        
        Number
        How many people are in the group?
        the greater the group the greater the influence
        max 4~5
        
        Strength
        how important is the group?
        
        stronger normative pressures with close humans
        
        amount of allies in group
        
        Minority Influence
        where a minority group influences behavior/beliefs of majority
        
        Collectivistic Culture
    - - Boomerang Effect
        depending in pre-existing behavior/attitude
      - Injunctive vs Descriptive Norms
        using norms to change behavior
        -> descriptive + injunctive == most successful
      - Compliance Techniques
        
        Foot-in-the-door
        getting people to agree first to a small request makes them more likely to agree to a second, larger request
        
        Door-in-the-face
        asking people for a large request that they will probably refuse makes them more likely to agree later to a second, smaller request
        
        Propaganda
        deliberate, systematic attempt to advance a cause by manipulating mass attitudes and behaviors, often through misleading or emotionally charged information
  - - - ambigous/confusing situation
        
        the greater the uncertainty: the more we rely on others
      - situation is crisis
        
        Problem
        the people we imitate may not be behaving rationally
      - Others are experts
        
        Problem: Not all experts are reliable
    - - ask others
      - observe others
    - - Panic-Effects
        
        Group reaction
        
        Emotional contagion
        
        Turn to uninformed experts
- - - - Principles
        
        Empirical
        
        structured or systematic observations
        
        results provide clear support for/against the hypothesis
        
        Public
        
        observations can be evaluated by everyone
        → replication to confirm
        
        Objective
        unbiased outcome
      - Steps in the Research Process
        
        find research idea
        
        form hypothesis
        
        determine how to define & measure variables
        
        identify participants, selection process & plan ethical treatment
        
        select research strategy
        
        select research design
        
        conduct study
        
        evaluate data
        
        report results
        
        refine or reformulate your research idea
      - Research Strategies
        
        Qualitative Research
        
        observations and focuses on description of qualities /characteristics of data
        
        more natural/rich data
        
        small sample size/single case analysis
        
        summarized in narrative report
        
        Quantitative Research
        
        measures variables varying in quantity
        
        produces numerical scores
        
        generalizable claims based on bigger sample sizes
        
        statistical analysis for summary and interpretation
        
        Mixed Methods
        Combining Qualitative & quantitative approaches
        
        Descriptive Analysis
        
        Observational Method
        
        goal: describe behavior
        
        execution: systematically recording behavior
        
        define recordable behaviors
        
        record behavior
        
        access observer's accuracy
        
        inerjudge/inerrater reliabiity
        
        Interrater Reliability
        level of agreement between two or more people who independently observe and code a set of data
        
        Limits
        
        certain behaviors are difficult to observe (rare/private)
        
        Archival Analysis (original does not have enough info)
        
        No prediction/explanation possible
        
        Survey
        Pro:
        
        investigate between variables that are difficult to observe
        
        e.g. rare/private behavior
        
        sample is representative
        
        Limits:
        accuracy of responses
        
        Random Selection
        ensuring that a sample to people is representative of a population by giving everyone in the population an equal chance of being selected for the sample
        
        Correlational Analysis
        statistical technique that assesses how well you can predict one variable from another
        
        positive correlation
        
        negative correlation
        
        Limits
        correlation =/= causation
        
        possible causal relations
        
        X leads to Y
        
        Y leads to X
        
        a third variable causes the relationship
        
        Experimental Analysis
        Goal:
        show effect of >=1 independent variable on >=1 dependent variable
        
        systematic manipulation of independent variables
        
        all other factors are kept constant
        
        confederates interacting with participants
        
        Limits
        
        confederates sometimes react involuntarily
        
        some experimental manipulations (dominance) are hard to realize in unstructured interaction
        
        pairing with different participants → unwanted variation of critical factors (interaction with same height/same gender/...)
        
        Internal & External Validity
        
        External Validity
        extent to which the results of a study can be generalized to other situations and to other people
        
        Generalizability across
        People
        
        Random selection of participants from population
        
        Studying basic/fundamental psychological processes that may be universal
        
        Improving External Validity
        
        Field Experiment
        experiments in natural environment
        →
        
        participants are unaware about experiment
        
        participants are more diverse than typical college sample
        
        1 more item...
        
        Generalizability across Situations
        
        Cover Story
        description of the purpose of a story given to participants that is different from the real purpose used to maintain psychological realism
        
        Psychological realism
        psychological processes triggered by the experiment are similar to psychological processes in real life
        
        Tests
        
        Replications
        repeating a study
        
        different population
        
        different settings
        → external validity
        
        Meta-Analysis
        averaging results of two or more studies to see if effect of independent variable is reliable
        → internal validity
      - Ethical Research
        Conflicting goals:
        
        Create experiments that resemble real world and are well controlled
        
        avoid causing participants stress, discomfort, unpleasantness
        
        APA Guidelines
        1973
        
        Issues
        
        No Harm
        protect participants from physical/psychological harm
        -> best treatment for everyone
        Clinical Equipoise
        
        studies provide different treatments (randomly)
        
        no comparison between treatments - only comparison when
        
        honest uncertainty which treatment is best
        
        honest professional disagreement whch treatment is best
        
        Informed Consent
        requires the investigator to provide all available information about a study so that an individual can make a rational, informed decision to participate in the study
        inform participants about all available information about the study so they can make a rational decision to participate (or not)
        
        Debriefing
        post-experimental explanation of the study that is given to the participants, especially if deception was used
        
        Deception
        researcher purposefully withholding information/misleading participants about a study. Forms: passive & Active
        
        Confidentiality
        (discretion)
        ensured through anonymity
        includes:
        
        attitudes & opinions
        
        measures of performance
        
        demographic characteristics
- - - - First Impression
        
        Believe Perseverance
        The tendency to stick with an initial judgement even in the face of new information that should prompt us to reconsider
        inconsistent thoughts are unpleasant
        → Confirmation bias
        
        Role of nonverbal communication
        
        Baby-Face
        
        "Gaydar"
        
        powerfulness and warmth → correlation with election-results
        
        Thin Slicing
        Drawing meaningful conclusions about another person's personality or skills based on an example of behavior
        -> schemas fill the gap
        
        Primacy Effect
        first traits we perceive in others influence how we view information that we llearn about them later
      - Causal Attribution
        how do people determine why others are doing something
        
        Internal Attribution
        the inference that a person is behaving in a certain way because of something about the person, such as attitude, character or personality
        
        External Attribution
        the inference that a person is behacing in a certain way because of something about their situation he/she is in
        the assumption is that most people would respond the same way in the situation
        
        Covariation Model
        distinguish personal traits from external effects
        Factors:
        
        Consensus Information
        
        info on the extent that others would behave the same way
        
        distinctiveness Information
        
        info on the extent to which one behaves the same way to different stimuli
        
        Consistency information
        
        info on the extent to which the behavior to one stimuli is the same over time & circumstances
        
        Fundamental Attribution Error
        tendency to overestimate the extent to which other people's behavior is due to internal factors
      - Nonverbal Communication
        the way in which people communicate, intentionally and unintentionally, without words
        cues:
        
        facial expression
        
        tone of voice
        
        gestures (cultural differences)
        
        body positions & movement
        
        the use of touch
        gaze
        
        Cultural differences
        
        mostly easy to distinguish
        
        different categories
        
        individualistic cultures: discourage of expression of shame in front of others
        
        low impact vs high impact cultures
        
        Nodding is "Yes" vs Nodding is "No"
        
        Variations in direct eye contact