Chapter 9 social Psychology

Informational social influence
Influence that comes from the need to be correct when you are uncertain.

Sherif’s study and informational social influence
this study demonstrated informational influence, this is

Asch’s study
This study was conducted with one random person and a couple people who knew what was happening. The people who knew what was going on were placed infront of the random so that when they casted their answers (that were clearly wrong) the random would agree more times than not.

normative social influence
when a person doesn’t want to stick out and gain disproval.

acting in accordance to a direct request from another person or group.

foot in the door technique
compliance to a large request is gained by preceding it with a very small request

Korean war using foot in the door
convinced POW’s that communism was good by proving small things, they eventually got larger and larger requests in which POW’s would agree with.

door-in-the-face technique
compliance is gained first with a LARGE, unreasonable request that is turned down and following it with a more reasonable, smaller request.

low-ball technique
during this technique, the person is presented with a very attractive offer, the buyer is then told by the sales person that they are going to have to do a higher price.

That’s not all technique
when you agree with a second request that has additional benefits by presenting this request before a response can be made to the first one.

Compliance to a person of authority.

Milgram’s experiment
participant (teacher) administered questions, when answered wrong they would increase voltage each time to confederate (learner). The actual experimenter kept telling teacher to go up in voltage. they complied till the learner was “dead.”

Jonestown massacre
When Reverend Jim Jones convinced cultists to commit suicide by using techniques such as; foot in the door, door in the face and informational social influence.

social facilitation
When you are presented with an easy task your less likely to get it wrong infront of people opposed to solving a complex puzzle in which you would do worse on when people are around.

Social loafing
the tendency to exert less effort when in a group then you would if you were by yourself.

diffusion of responsibility
lessening of individual responsibility for a task when responsibility for the task is spread across the members of the group.

Bystander effect
the probability that a person would help according to how many people were around to give possible aid.

when anonymity is present as well as an accompanying group.

Group polarization
the strengthening of a groups prevailing opinion about a topic following group discussion about the topic.

A mode of thinking that impairs decision making because the desire for group harmony overrides a realistic appraisal of the possible decision alternatives.

Just-world hypothesis
the assumption that the world is just and that people get what they deserve.

primacy effect
when earlier information outweighs new information on a person. they act like dicks the first time you met them but act nice next time you still think they are dicks.

self-fulfilling prophecy
our behavior leads a person to act in accordance with our expectations for that person.

Actor-observer bias
tend to assume others behaviors are due to fundamental attribution error

self serving bias
tending to favor yourself in a situation

false consensus effect
the tendency to overestimate the commonality of ones opinions and unsuccessful behaviors.

False uniqueness effect
The tendency to think others are as good as you at something. so that you are able to preserve your uniqueness. (self protection)

cognitive dissonance
which proposes that people change their attitudes to reduce cognitive discomfort created by inconsistencies between their attitudes and their behaviors.

self perception theory
darly bem assumes that when we are unsure of our attitudes, we infer them by examining our behavior and the context in which it occurs.

The Stanford prison study by Philip zimbardo
this was conducted in the basement of Stanford. Students that were emotionally stable were given prison suits, and guard suits. This study got so intense that each role was played very seriously after only 6 days zimbardo had to end it.