Samenvatting Social psychology

ISBN-10 0393932583 ISBN-13 9780393932584
547 Flashcards en notities
3 Studenten
  • Deze samenvatting

  • +380.000 andere samenvattingen

  • Een unieke studietool

  • Een oefentool voor deze samenvatting

  • Studiecoaching met filmpjes

Onthoud sneller, leer beter. Wetenschappelijk bewezen.

Dit is de samenvatting van het boek "Social psychology". De auteur(s) van het boek is/zijn Thomas Gilovich, Dacher Keltner, Richard E Nisbett. Het ISBN van dit boek is 9780393932584 of 0393932583. Deze samenvatting is geschreven door studenten die effectief studeren met de studietool van Study Smart With Chris.

Samenvatting - Social psychology

  • 1.1 Characterizing Social Psychology

  • Social Psychology: social situations influence thoughts, feeling and behavior
  • Wat is Social Psychology
    The scientific study of the feelings, thoughts and behaviors of individuals in social situations
  • the situations determine the behavior, despite individual differences
  • Obedient to orders (Abu Graib en Stanford Prison Experiment)
  • Social psychologists research on topics as judgement and decision making, social influence and how people function in groeps 
  • Hoe gebruiken sociale psychologen hun kennis?
    Deze passen ze toe op belangrijke vragen gericht op de individu en de maatschappij, kijkend naar hoe stereotypering and vooroordelen verminderd kunnen worden op scholen en werkplaatsen.
  • Proximal influences of behavior

    factors that exist in the here and now or that immediatly precede what the individual does, in the immediate situation. this includes  the situation itself, how the individual percieves the situation and the processes of percieving and reacting to situations

  • Distal influences of behavior
    factors that are more removed in time from a given context or episode, factors that are not immediatly present
  • 1.2 The Power of the Situation

  • the situation determines the behavior despite individual differences
    > How does the situation that people find themselves in affect their behavior?

  • Kurt Lewin and situation/personality
    the behavior of people, like the behavior of objects, is always a function of the field of forces in which they find themselves. the persons own attributes are also important determinants of behavior, but these attributes always interact with the situation to produce the resulting behavior.
  • the main situational influences on our behavior are...
    the actions of other people, we often misjudge or fail to see these influences
  • anderen kunnen grote veranderingen aanbrengen in ons 'geloof' en gedrag door de dingen die zij vertellen, dit in hun handelen naar voren te laten komen, het overnemen van meningen en gedrag om bij een groep te horen of door ons te laten voelen dat onze vrijheid wordt bepaald door hun pogingen tot invloed uitoefenen
  • In the Milgram Experiment keken de mensen naar de onderzoeker als ze bang waren de ander pijn te doen, toen deze zei 'ga door' deed ging 62,5% door tot het hoogte niveau.

    Deze mensen waren geen monsters, maar de situatie zorgde ervoor dat mensen dingen deden die normaal alleen harteloze mensen zouden kunnen doen

  • Channel factors are

    • certain situational circumstances that appear unimportant on the surface but that can have great consequences for behavior, either facilitating or blocking it or guiding behavior in a particular direction
    • something to facilitate the behavior
  • Fundamental attribution error

    • underestimating the power of external factors that operate on the individual and assume that the causes of behavior can be found mostly within the person
    • overestimate personality and underestimate situation while explaining behavior
    • the failure to recognize the importance ofsituational influences on behavior, together with the tendency to overemphasize the importance of dispositions or traits on behavior
  • Dispotitions
    • internal factors
    • that is: beliefs, values, personality traits or abilities, real or imagined
  • We have seen that situations are often more powerful in their influence on behavior than we realize. Whether people are kind to others or not, can be dependent on subtle aspects of situations. Such situational factors are often overlooked when we try to understand our own behavior or that of others, and behavior is often mistakenly attributed to presumed traits or dispositions(the fundamental attribution error).
  • 1.3 The Role of Construal

  • Construal
    Interpretation and inference about the stimuli or situations we confront
  • Gestalt psychology
    Based on the German word, Gestalt, meaning "form" or "figure", this approach stresses the fact that objects are percieved not by means of some automatic registering device but by active, usually unconscious, interpretation of what the object represents as a whole
  • Schemas

    • Generalized knowledge about the physical and social world and how to behave in particular situatons and with different kinds of people
    • Dependent on elaborate stores of systemized knowledge to understand even the simplest and most obvious situations
  • Schemas capture regularities of life and lead us to have certain expectations we can rely on so that we don't have to invent the world anew all the time
  • Stereotypes
    Schemas that we have for people of various kinds that can be applied to judgements about people and decisions about how to interact with them

    • Research on stereotyping examines the content of these person schemas and how they are applied and sometimes misapplied so as to facilitate, and sometimes derail, the course of interaction.
    • We tend to judge individuals based on particular person schemas we have.
    • Stereotypes can be wrong. They can be applied in the wrong way and to the wrong people and they can be given too much weight in relation to more specific information we have about a particular person.
  • We have seen that although it often seems as though our understanding of situations is the result of a direct, unmediated registration of meaning, our comprehension of even the simplest physical stimulus is the result of constural processes that make use of well-developed knowledge structures. Such structures are called schemas when they are summarized commonly encountered situations and they are called stereotypes when they describe different types of people.
Lees volledige samenvatting
Deze samenvatting. +380.000 andere samenvattingen. Een unieke studietool. Een oefentool voor deze samenvatting. Studiecoaching met filmpjes.

Laatst toegevoegde flashcards

Why do groups make more extreme decisions?

Valuing risk: in many group decision-making scenarios, group decisions tend to be riskier 

>>Originally group polarization was thought to always lead to a “risky shift”


For Americans, taking a risk may be seen as a virtue. Group discussions may encourage a favorable view of risk taking and so the group decision becomes more extreme 

In cultures that don’t value risk taking, group discussions lead to more conservative decisions 

Social comparison theory

A theory that maintains when there isn't an objective standard of evaluation or comprehension, people evaluate their opinions and abilities by comparing themselves to others.

Compare self to others, with the drive to be “better” than others 

If others express similar opinions, we may take a more extreme position to differentiate ourselves

Group polerization

The tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than those made by individuals. Whatever way the individuals are leaning, group discussion tends to make them lean further in that direction.

Group decisions tend to be more extreme than decisions rendered by individuals 

>Why do groups make more extreme decisions? 

Persuasive arguments : Exposure to additional arguments in favor of one’s preexisting opinion strengthens opinion

Risky shift

The tendency for groups to make riskier decisions than individuals would


The tendency to withhold information or opinions in group discussions

Preventing groupthink
  • Group leader should refrain from making opinion known at first 
  • Have leader originally discuss decision with each member individually 

>>Although one might expect collectivistic cultures to be more vulnerable to groupthink because of the emphasis on group identity, groupthink is actually rare in collectivistic cultures. 

>>Often group leader discusses important decisions with each member individually. Individuals then feel free to express their opinions during the group discussion 

  • Bring in outside opinions 
  • Assign a “devil’s advocate” 
  • Develop an alternate plan

A kind of faulty thinking on the part of highly cohesive groups in which the critical scrutiny that should be devoted to the issues at hand is subverted by social pressures to reach consensus.

Groups that are highly cohesive can produce poor group decisions because maintaining group harmony may be 

emphasized over making an accurate judgment 

Historic examples of groupthink = Kennedy administration’s invasion Cuba’s Bay of Pigs without providing proper air cover

Escaping self-awareness

Many self-destructive behaviors may be attempts to escape self-awareness 

>>For instance, drinking alcohol decreases selfawareness. 

>>We are even less likely to use pronouns like “I” or “me” when we are intoxicated

Spotlight effect

People's conviction that other people are attending to them - to their appearance and behavior - more than is actually the case.

We often believe that other people are paying more attention to us than they really are

Self-awareness theory

A theory that maintains that when people focus their attention inward on themselves, they become concerned with self-evaluation and how their current behavior conforms to their internal standards and values.

When people focus attention on themselves (individuation), they become concerned with self-evaluation and behave in ways more consistent with their values and beliefs 

>>For instance, in a study that had timed how fast participants could solve a problem, many participants cheated a bit by taking extra time. 

>>However, with a mirror in the room less than 10 percent cheated