Transcript Ch. 18 - RaduegeAP

Chapter 18
Social Psychology
Social Psychology

Social Psychology
• The study of how people are influenced by
groups

The three main focuses of social
psychology are
• How we think about one another
• How we influence one another
• How we relate to one another
Social Thinking

Attribution Theory:
• Suggests how we explain someone’s
behavior—be crediting either the
situation of the person’s disposition
• Sources of attribution
 Disposition: internal causes
(personality tendency)
 Situations: external causes
Social Thinking

Fundamental Attribution Error
The tendency for observers (when analyzing
another’s behavior) to underestimate the impact
of the situation (e.g. financial or social situations)
and overestimate the impact of personal
dispositions (personal characteristics).
This is not true when we analyze our own
behavior. When we analyze our own behavior we
are more sensitive to how our behaviors change
with the situation.
There is some evidence that this tendency may
be more common in some societies (e.g. the
United States) than in others (e.g. Hindu India).
Social Thinking

The Effects of Attribution
• Happy People: Happy people tend to explain
negative behaviors of their friends/spouses as
situational.
• Unhappy People: Unhappy people are more
likely to explain negative behaviors of their
friends/spouses as being due to the person’s
disposition.
• Conservatives: Conservatives tend to explain
social problems (homelessness) as due to people’s
disposition.
• Liberals: Liberals are more likely to attribute
social problems to situations.
Attitudes and Actions

Attitude:
feelings, often based on our
beliefs, that predispose us to respond in a
particular way to objects, people, and
events
Attitudes and Actions

Attitudes have three components
1. Cognitive (belief)
2. Affective (emotional)
3. Behavior (way of acting)
Attitudes and Actions

For example: We may feel dislike for
a person (emotion), because we
believe he or she is mean
(cognition), and, as a result, act
unfriendly toward that person
(behavior).
Attitudes Can Affect Actions

Attitudes guide actions when
• Outside influences are minimal
• Attitude is specifically related to
the behavior
• Awareness of attitudes is important
Actions Can Affect Attitudes

The Foot-in-the Door
Phenomenon: A tendency for
people who agree to a small request
to comply later with a large one.
Actions Can Affect Attitudes

The foot-in-the-door phenomenon
• When soliciting help for a club if you
can initially get someone to commit to
doing something very small (i.e. make
one poster) then your chances of
getting this person to do more
involved and time consuming activities
increases.
• 17 % put up big ugly sign
• All did if they put up a little sign first
Actions Can Affect Attitudes

Door-in-the-Face Procedure:
This argues that after people refuse a
large request, they will look more
favorably upon a follow-up request
that seems, in comparison, much
more reasonable.
Actions Can Affect Attitudes

Role Playing Affect Attitudes
The behaviors associated
with a new role may
initially feel artificial.
However, they soon
seem to reflect our true
self as we adopt
attitudes in keeping with
our roles
Role Playing





Actually works
Zimbardo (1972)
Prison experiment
Got really scary
Had to stop the experiment
Role Playing Affects Attitudes

Cognitive Dissonance Theory:
Cognitive dissonance theory holds
that when attitudes and behaviors
are inconsistent (or “dissonant”),
people feel uneasy and are
motivated to make them consistent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=korGK0yGIDo
http://www.psychexchange.co.uk/videos/view/20957/
Role Playing Affects Attitudes

Example: Leon Fessinger did an experiment
where he paid people to say that a boring
task was enjoyable. Some subjects were paid
$20 to lie and others were paid $1 to lie.
According to the cognitive dissonance theory,
those paid $20 to lie had clear justification for
lying and should have experienced little
dissonance (inconsistency) between what
they said and what they felt toward the task,
in fact, their attitude toward the task did not
change very much. However, subjects who
received just $1 had little justification to lie
which caused a state of cognitive dissonance
(or discomfort). They could reduce their
dissonance by displaying a more positive
attitude toward the task, which they did.
Conformity and Obedience

Chameleon effect: refers to our
natural tendency to mimic others
Conformity and Obedience

Unconsciously mimicking others’
expressions, postures, and voice tones
helps us to empathize with others.
Research participants in an experiment
tend to rub their own face when
confederates rub their face; similarly, the
participants shake their own foot when
they are with a foot-shaking person. The
most empathic people mimic and are liked
the most.
Conformity and Obedience

Conformity: the adjustment of one’s
opinions, judgments,
or actions so that
they match those
of other people
or the normative
standards of a
social group or
situation.
Conformity and Obedience

Odd data
• Suicides go up after suicides are published
• So do car crashes
• Airplane crashes

Ash’s classic line length experiments
• Solomon Asch found that under certain
conditions, people will conform to a group’s
judgment even when it is clearly incorrect
• About 1/3 of people give the wrong answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRh5qy09nNw
Conformity and Obedience

Conditions that strengthen conformity
• Made to feel incompetent
• At least three people in the group
• One admires the group’s status and
attractiveness
• The group is unanimous
• No prior commitment to any response
• Our behavior is in the open
• One’s culture strongly encourages
respect for social standards
Conformity and Obedience

Reasons for Conforming
• Normative social influence:
influence resulting from a person’s
desire to gain approval or avoid
disapproval.
Conformity and Obedience

Reasons for Conforming
• Informational social influence:
influence resulting from one’s willingness to
accept others’ opinions about reality.
(When the accuracy of our judgments seem
important, people rarely conformed when
the task was easy, but they conformed half
the time when the task was difficult. If we
are unsure of what is right, and if being
right matters, we are receptive to others’
opinions)
Obedience

Obedience
• The tendency to comply with
orders, implied, or real, from
someone perceived as an authority
figure
Obedience

Milgram’s Experiment
 Description of the experiment: In
the Milgram studies, the experimenter
ordered “teachers” to deliver shocks to
a learner for wrong answers. Torn
between obeying the experimenter and
responding to the learner’s pleas, the
people usually chose to obey orders,
even though it supposedly meant
harming the learner.
Stanley Milgram’s Experiment
Obedience

Conditions in which obedience was
highest:
 when the person giving the orders was
close at hand and was perceived to be a
legitimate authority;
 when the authority figure was supported
by a prestigious institution;
 when the victim was depersonalized or at
a distance;
 when there was no role models for
defiance.
Lessons From the Conformity
and Obedience Studies
The experiments demonstrate that social
influences can be strong enough to make
people conform to falsehoods or capitulate
to cruelty. The studies, because of their
design, also illustrate how great evil
sometimes grows out of people’s
compliance with lesser evils. Evil does not
require monstrous characters but ordinary
people corrupted by an evil situation. By
understanding the processes that shape
our behavior, we may be less susceptible
to external social pressures in real-life
situations that lad to violate our own
internal standards.
Individual Behavior in the
Presence of Others

Social Facilitation
• occurs when the presence of another
person improves performance.
• This is not true in all situations. Social
facilitation holds true when we are
engaging in a behavior we feel we can
do well.
Individual Behavior in the
Presence of Others

Social Impairment
• occurs when another’s presence harms
performance
• This is more likely to occur if you are
performing a task that you usually find
difficult. Knowing that people are
watching may make the task seem even
more difficult.
Individual Behavior in the
Presence of Others

Social Loafing: occurs when people
in a group exert less effort than they
would when performing alone.
Individual Behavior in the
Presence of Others

Social Loafing
• This is more common among men
than women.
• It is also more common in Western
individualistic cultures than in
Eastern collectivist cultures.
Individual Behavior in the
Presence of Others

Why does social loafing occur?
1. Reward comes regardless of effort
2. Rewards will be divided
3. Group members may think that
their efforts just aren’t necessary
Individual Behavior in the
Presence of Others

Deindividuation:
 The loss of self-awareness and selfrestraint occurring in group situations that
foster arousal and anonymity. When
people experience deindividuation, they
undergo heightened emotional arousal and
an intense feeling of cohesiveness with the
group. Because of deindividuation, people
may do things they wouldn’t do if they
were alone or identifiable. Deindividuation
is heightened when members of a group
act in unison or wear uniforms.
Individual Behavior in the
Presence of Others
Examples of Deindividuation:

In the 2001 NFL season, Cleveland
fans covered one end of the field
with beer bottles when they thought
a referee’s call cost them the game.
Sports fans often yell comments
during a game that they would never
yell if they were alone in the stands
and easily identified.
Individual Behavior in the
Presence of Others

Example of Deindividuation:
• The hood and mask of the Ku Klux Klan
uniform heightens the sense of
anonymity felt by Klansmen. So does
the darkness of night at a cross
burning. Such factors add to the
likelihood that people will commit
antisocial acts that they would not
commit if alone or it their identity were
known.
• Your examples?
Effects of Group Interaction

Group Polarization
 the enhancement of a group’s prevailing
inclinations through discussion within
the group.
Effects of Group Interaction

Group Polarization
• Positive examples: strengthens
feelings of tolerance in a low-prejudice
group, reinforces motivation of those in
a self-help group.
• Negative examples: high-prejudice
students became MORE prejudice when
they discussed racial issues in a group.
• Hale examples?
Effects of Group Interaction

Groupthink: the mode of thinking
that occurs when the desire for
harmony in a decision-making group
overrides a realistic appraisal of
alternatives. This is more likely to
happen in small, closely knit groups
Effects of Group Interaction

Group Think
• Example: The U.S. senate intelligence
committee demonstrated group think
when personnel involved in the Iraq
weapons of mass destruction issue:
examined few alternatives, selectively
gathered information, exerted pressure
to conform within the group or withhold
criticism, and collective rationalization
Effects of Group Interaction

Group Think
• Historical Example: Cuban Missile Crisis
The Power of Individuals

Minority Influence: When they are
persistent and united, minorities can
influence the behavior or beliefs of the
majority. Minorities can sway
majorities, but only if they stand firm.
Social psychologists found that
minorities that waffle in their
convictions have trouble persuading
others, while those who are unwavering
are far more successful in their
persuasive efforts.
Prejudice



Mixture of beliefs, emotions and
actions towards a group
Influences cognition
While blatant prejudice is on the
wane, subtler forms are still out
there
Emotional Roots of Prejudice

Scapegoat Theory:
• suggests that prejudice offers an
outlet for anger by providing
someone to blame.
• To boost our own sense of status, it
also helps to have others to
denigrate.
Cognitive Roots of Prejudice



We have a need to categorize stuff
The availability heuristic does not
help much
The just world hypothesis
• They deserve it
Aggression

Aggression: any physical or verbal
behavior intended to hurt or destroy.
Aggression

This definition of aggression has a
more precise meaning than it does in
every day usage where an assertive
salesperson or a dentist who make
us wince with pain may be described
as “aggressive.” On the other hand,
psychology’s definition recognizes a
verbally assaultive person or one
who spreads a vicious rumor as
aggressive.
Aggression




There are genetic factors
There are biochemical factors
The frustration aggression hypothesis
Learning effects
Conflict



Conflict: a perceived incompatibility of
actions, goals, or ideas.
Social traps: a situation in which the
conflicting parties, by each rationally
pursuing their self-interest, become
caught in mutually destructive behavior.
Mirror-image perceptions: each party
views itself as moral and the other as
unworthy and evil-intentioned.
Attraction

Three factors that influence our
attraction for someone
1. Proximity
2. Physical Attractiveness
3. Similarity
Attraction

Proximity
•
(geographic nearness) is the most important
predictor of attraction. The more often
people interact, the more they tend to like
each other. The situation in which people
meet also influences attraction. If people
meet others in positive circumstances, they
are more likely to be attracted to each other.
•
(This is sometimes called the “mere exposure
effect”: repeated exposure to novel stimuli
enhances our liking of them)
Attraction

Physical Attractiveness
•
People tend to like attractive people.
This is true of both men and women. But
according to the matching hypothesis, people
tend to form committed relationships with
people who we perceive to be similar in
physical attractiveness. When a couple is
noticeably unequal in attractiveness the less
physically attractive person has other
compensating assets (i.e. wealth, status, or
social competence). Being physically attractive
can influence social opportunities and also
influence the way one is perceived. We view
attractive people as healthier, happier, more
sensitive, and more successful.
Attraction

Similarity
• People tend to like others who have
attitudes similar to their own,
especially attitudes about other
people. Attitudes influence attraction,
and attraction influences attitudes.
Romantic Love

Passionate Love:
 an aroused state of intense positive
absorption in another, unusually present
at the beginning of a love relationship.
 As it relates to Schachter-Singer’s TwoFactory Theory of Emotion (A.K.A.
Cognitive Appraisal Theory)
Romantic Love

Companionate Love:
• the deep affectionate attachment we
feel for those with whom our lives are
intertwined.
(companionate love = commitment + intimacy)
• Companionate love often
emerges as a relationship
matures.
Romantic Love

Companionate Love
• Two ingredients for a long-lasting
relationship are:


equity: a condition in which people
receive from a relationship in
proportion to what they give to it.
self-disclosure: revealing intimate
aspects of oneself to others.
Altruism

Altruism:
 unselfish regard for the
welfare of others.
Examples: donating blood,
offering time and money to help
victims of a natural disaster. In
the cases of true altruism, there is
no expectation of personal reward.
Bystander Intervention

Bystander effect:
 the phenomenon in which the
chances that someone will help in an
emergency decreases as the number
of people present increases. (when
alone with the person in need, 40%
of people helped; in the presence of
five other bystanders,
only 20% helped)
Bystander Intervention

Kitty Genovese
In the Genovese incident, thirty-eight
decent, law-abiding citizens in New York
City watched and listened from their
apartments while a woman was battered
and then murdered during a thirty-five
minute period, but no one did anything to
help. News media seized upon the story
to speculate about the causes of such
“callousness”; apathy, lack of regard for
others, and the “cold society”
were all suggested.
Kitty Genovese
Bystander Intervention

Psychologists John Darley and Bibb
Latane point out that situation
variables, not personality traits, led
to the lack of help in the Kitty
Genovese case. Emerging from their
research was the concept of the
bystander effect, the idea that the
presence of other inhibits helping
behavior.
Bystander Intervention

The following situational factors
determine whether someone
will help:
1. Noticing:
If people are busy they may not pay
attention to what is happening around
them. This is particularly true in urban
settings, because the presence of
others is distracting and can divert
attention from a victim’s problem.
Bystander Intervention

The following situational factors
determine whether someone will
help:
2. Interpreting the Situation: The
situation must be determined to be
one in which an emergency exists. If
others present do not seem to define
the situation as an emergency then
you are less likely to help.
Bystander Intervention

The following situational factors
determine whether someone will
help:
2. Taking Responsibility:
Generally in large groups no one
takes responsibility; everyone in the
group assumes that someone else
will or should take responsibility.
• Diffusion of responsibility: a belief that someone
else will help
Bystander Intervention


The following situational factors
determine whether someone will
help:
4. Deciding how to help:
Once the decision to help is made, the
question is how to help. If the person
feels competent in the situation, she or he
will often offer direct aid. If the person
does not feel competent, she or he will
offer indirect aid by calling for competent
help.
Bystander Intervention

The following situational factors
determine whether someone will
help:
5. Helping:
After deciding to help and how to help,
some people are still too embarrassed
to actually do so.

Audience inhibition: some people may be too
embarrassed to help because thy may feel
that they are being evaluated by other
bystanders and may do something to be
judged negatively.
Bystander Intervention

Additional findings:
Happy people are helpful people.