Transcript Unit 13 - Social Psychology

Social Psychology
Chapter 16
Social Psychology

The scientific study of the ways in which
the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of
one individual are influenced by the real,
imagined, or inferred behavior or
characteristics of other people
Social Cognition
How do we explain, interpret and
judge behavior?
Impression Formation
What do we think of others’ behavior?

Schema: a set of beliefs or expectations about
something/someone based on past experiences
that we use to understand novel events
– Ready-made category
– Allows us to make inferences about others
– Also plays a major role in how we interpret and
remember information
– E.g. if we witness a mother reprimanding her child at
the supermarket, we might assume she is a bad or
abusive mother because we saw something similar in
a Lifetime movie, and we may even assign her other
traits that go along with this assumption even if she
doesn’t actually demonstrate those traits! Or if we
have recently watched this, we may feel differently!
Impression Formation
What do we think of others’ behavior?

Primacy effect: early information is a
greater determinant of attitudes
– Early information about someone makes a
greater impact than later information in
forming impressions
– “Cognitive Misers”
 Humans don’t like to spend too much time figuring
people out
 Go with the initial impression to save time
Impression Formation
What do we think of others’ behavior?

Self-fulfilling prophecy
– A person’s expectations about another elicits behavior
from the other person that confirms the expectations
– e.g. High school coach is told by middle school coach
that a player coming up is “amazing.” High school
coach treats this player as though s/he is talented,
and the player responds accordingly, confirming the
initial belief.

Stereotypes
– A set of characteristics believed to be shared by all
members of a social category
– Can become the basis for self-fulfilling prophecies
 e.g. “Elderly people are cheap!” You are a waiter in a
restaurant and make this assumption, so you don’t provide
the greatest service. Then your tip is smaller and you
believe it is because the old people are cheap!
Attribution:
How do we explain behavior?

Theory that addresses the question of how
people make judgments about the causes of
behavior
– e.g. “Why did I fail the test?”
– e.g. “Why did my best friend stop talking to me?”

Heider (1958) says we first decide if the cause
is personal or dispositional (internal
attribution) or situational (external
attribution).
– Personal/Internal: Behavior caused by that
individual’s characteristics
– Situational/External: Circumstances prompted the
individual’s behavior
Attribution:
How do we explain behavior?

Three criteria used to judge behavior as
personal or situational (Kelley, 1967):
– Distinctiveness: How do the person’s responses vary from
situation to situation?
– Consistency: Has this person responded in the same way
in this situation?
– Consensus: The degree to which person’s behavior is
similar to others’ behavior
 Low consensus + low distinctiveness + high consistency = Internal
(personal) attribution
– e.g. Nobody else failed the psych test. I often fail tests. I often
fail psych tests. It’s ME!
 High consensus + high distinctiveness + low consistency = External
(situational) attribution
– e.g. Everyone else also failed this test. I never fail tests! I never
fail psych tests. It’s the TEST!
Biases in Attribution

Fundamental Attribution Error
– Tendency to overemphasize personal causes for others’ behavior
– This works along with actor-observer bias, where we also
underemphasize personal causes for our own behavior
– e.g. “She cut me off because she is a terrible driver!”
– e.g. “I cut someone else off because I am late for work.”

Defensive attribution and Self-Serving Bias
– Tendency to attribute our successes to our own efforts and our
failures to external factors
– e.g. “I failed the test because the teacher made it impossible and
clearly she hates me!” OR “I got an A because I’m a genius!”

Just-World Hypothesis
– Assumption bad things happen to bad people and good things
happen to good people
– e.g. “She got herpes because she is a strumpet!”
– e.g. “She will win the election because she’s sooooo nice.”

Attribution across cultures varies dramatically
– E.g. Japanese vs. American students and explaining academic
performance
Attitudes
What do we think?
Attitudes
Is a person’s behavior a reflection of his/her attitudes?


Attitudes are relatively stable beliefs, feelings, and
behaviors directed toward something/someone
Three components
– Cognitive: beliefs and ideas held about the object/person
– Affective: emotions associated with object/person
– Behavioral: how we act based on our attitudes

Typically, feelings and beliefs about a person/thing
correspond with behaviors toward that person/thing, but
not always
– Self-monitoring: tendency to observe a situation to determine
how best to act.
 High self-monitors look for social cues about how they are expected
to behave in a given situation, overriding their attitudes, making it
difficult to predict behavior based on attitudes.
 Low self-monitors express and act on their attitudes consistently
making prediction easier.
– LaPiere Study in the 1930s (Chinese couple in restaurants)
Attitude Development

Many factors contribute to the
development of attitudes
– Imitation
– Reward
– Role Models
– Peers
– Mass media
Attitude Change
What makes us change our mind?

Process of persuasion
– Must pay attention to the message
– Must comprehend the message
– Comprehension leads to acceptance

Central vs. Peripheral Route to persuasion
– Central – people focus on the message and the facts to form
attitudes
– Peripheral – people focus on incidental cues, such as speaker’s
attractiveness, position, reputation, etc.

Communication model
– Source: credible spokesperson?
– Message: present both sides!
– Medium: written for complex messages; video for more simple;
face to face is best!
– Audience: how committed is audience to their point of view?
 People with low self esteem easier to change
 Intelligent people more resistant to change
Attitude Change

Role-Playing and Attitudes
– When we adopt a new role, we attempt to conform to social
expectations of playing that role
– Eventually, we “become” the role
– e.g. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study (1971)

Mere Exposure Effect
– Our attitude toward someone/something will become more
positive with continued exposure
– e.g. We are more likely to like someone we see frequently

Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Leon Festinger)
– Perceived inconsistency between two cognitions causes
discomfort (dissonance)
 e.g. “I am an honest person” and “I cheated on the test”
– Dissonance can be reduced through attitude change
 e.g. “I am not that honest”
– An alternative is to increase the number thoughts that support
one or the other dissonant cognitions
 e.g. “I have never stolen, never gotten arrested, never cheated on
a FINAL,” etc.
Social Influence
How do we impact others?
Compliance
Change in behavior in response to an explicit
request from another person or group
 Work of Robert Cialdini and the methods of
gaining compliance

– Foot-in-the-door effect: Get them to say yes to a
small request first
– Lowball procedure: Get compliance then raise price of
compliance
– Door-in-the-face effect: Get them to decline large
request then ask something smaller
Conformity
Voluntarily yielding to social norms, even
at the expense of one’s own preferences
 Asch Experiment
 Factors That Strengthen Conformity

– Unfamiliar situation
– Larger group
– Unanimity of group
– If group is high status/attractive
– Collectivist culture
Obedience
Change in behavior in response to a command
from another person, typically an authority
figure
 Milgram’s studies on obedience show willingness
to follow commands

– 63% of subjects fully complied!
– Follow up studies showed women also complied

The Modern Milgram
Group Influence

Social Facilitation
– In the presence of others, performance is stronger on easier tasks
– Also, performance can be weaker on difficult tasks in the presence of
others – unless we have expertise
– e.g. Runners who run in a group have faster times than when running
alone

Helping Behavior
– Altruistic behavior: helping behavior that is not linked to personal gain
– Bystander effect and Diffusion of Responsibility
 Helpfulness decreases as bystanders increase
 Kitty Genovese Case and the bystander effect; NPR reports 50 years later…
 Darley and Latané (1969) and the smoke-filled room (75% to 10%)
– Mood can affect willingness to help
– Cultures differ in amount of help offered in response to requests for
minor help (collective cultures more willing)
– Social Exchange Theory: behavior is dictated by desire to maximize
benefits and minimize costs of helping
– Reciprocity norm: people will help those who helped them
– Social Responsibility Norm: people will help those dependent on them
Group Decision Making

Deindividuation
– Loss of personal sense of responsibility in a group
– People more likely to engage in risky behavior when
anonymous
– Helps to explain mob behavior
– Mob Behavior also facilitated by the snowball effect, when
one vocal person convinces a few people, who convince a
few more, etc.

Risky Shift
– Increased willingness of individual to take risks when making
decisions as a group as opposed to making decisions as
individuals.

Group Polarization in decision making
– Shift of the group toward a more extreme position following
group discussion between like-minded individuals
Group Decision Making:
Effectiveness of Groups

The more people in the group…
– The more stable the group is
– The less cohesive/efficient the group may become

Social loafing
– Tendency to expend less effort when part of a large group
– Decrease in individual accountability

Groupthink
– Pressure to conform to group makes everyone in the group have
same beliefs and attitudes
– Realistic and logical decision making gives way to the desire to have
consensus

Hawthorne Effect
– Behavior improves when one is being studied by others
– Based on studies of Hawthorne Works Electric Factory (1924-1932)
Cultural Influence
Culture greatly influences attitudes and
behaviors
 Cultural truism

– Beliefs that most members of a society accept as selfevidently true
– People in the culture do not question these
– e.g. “Eating dog is unacceptable.”

Truisms are the backbone of norms, shared
expectations about how to behave in a given
culture.
Cultural Assimilators




Not all cultures are the same, and not all cultures have
the same norms.
People in a given culture may feel their way is the “right”
way, and other cultures are “backwards.”
This is the basis of ethnocentrism, or the belief that
one’s own culture superior.
Examining cultural assimilators helps to reduce these
assumptions.
– Cultural assimilators are the explanations for why members
of a culture have a particular behavior.
– Understanding cultural assimilators helps people to maintain an
open mind about other cultures’ norms and values.
Social Relations
How do we relate to others?
Prejudice and Discrimination

Prejudice
– An intolerant, unfavorable, and rigid attitude toward a
group of people; negative stereotypes.
– Ultimate Attribution Error: tendency to use
stereotyped beliefs about a group to make internal
attributions about shortcomings and external
attributions about successes.

Discrimination
– An act or series of acts that denies opportunities and
social esteem to an entire group of people or
individual members of that group
Sources of Prejudice:
Where does it come from?

Social Inequalities
– “Haves” vs. “Have Nots” – those who have feel justified and
often use negative stereotypes of “have nots” to justify
inequalities.
– “Blame-the-victim” dynamic

Us vs. Them: Ingroup and Outgroup
– We have the need to belong (Maslow) for feelings of
identity, solidarity and safety
– Those who are outside our group are threatening
– We reserve greatest hatred for those most like us (Yankees
vs. Mets fans)
– Ingroup Bias – Belief that those with whom you identify are
not only different, but BETTER than those outside the group.
Sources of Prejudice:
Where does it come from?

Frustration-aggression theory
– People who are frustrated in their goals may turn their anger away
from the proper target toward another, less powerful target

Authoritarian personality
– Personality pattern characterized by rigid conventionality, exaggerated
respect for authority, and hostility toward those who defy social norms

Racism
– Prejudice and discrimination directed at particular racial group based on
the belief that certain groups are innately inferior
– Institutionalized Racism
– What Would You Do part 1
– What Would You Do part 2

Scapegoat Theory
– Blame others for when things go wrong for us
– Tendency is to blame a “weaker” group/group in minority
– e.g. antisemitism during the plague or during the economic depression
of the 1920s and 1930s in Europe
Inducing Prejudice: Jane Elliot
Elementary education teacher Jane Elliot
wanted to teach her class about
discrimination after the assassination of
Martin Luther King.
 She designed an experiment to show how
easily children could be transformed into
prejudiced monsters.
 A Class Divided: video on Elliot’s work
 Update on the Elliot experiment with Phil
Zimbardo

Reducing Prejudice

Recategorization
– Assumes prejudice can be linked to categorization, or how we group usually based on stereotypes
– Try to expand our schema for a particular group
– What qualities are shared between groups?

Controlled processing
– Train ourselves to be more mindful of people who differ from us
– Think about examples that fall outside the stereotypes

Improving contact between groups
–
–
–
–

Group members must have equal status
Need one-on-one contact with other group
Relations are improved when groups come together to cooperate
Social norms should encourage contact
Superordinate Goals
– Goals that override differences and require cooperative contact between
groups
– First used by Muzafer Sherif (1966) in a study on two groups of boys in
boy scout camp initially encouraged to be competitive with one another
Interpersonal Attraction:
What determines whether we want to befriend someone?

Proximity/propinquity
– We are attracted to people who are in the same space as we are
– Has the internet changed this at all?

Physical attractiveness
– We like physically attractive people because being with hot people
makes us feel like we are hot, too!
– Berscheid and Walster (1972)
 Beauty and the Best Psychology Today
 People believe that physically attractive individuals are smarter, friendlier, and
generally “better” based solely on their physical attributes!

Similarity
– In attitudes, interests, values, and background
– Opposites only attract for the short term…

Exchange: how do we reward each other?
– We like people who appreciate us
– Should be even (reciprocity)

Intimacy: how much trust and closeness is there?
– Self disclosure
– Should be equal
Love
Similar to friendship, similarity, proximity,
attractiveness, and exchange all play a
role.
 However, love also includes physiological
arousal, all-encompassing interest in each
other, fantasizing about each other, and a
relatively rapid swing of emotions.
 Love also includes passion, closeness,
fascination, exclusiveness, sexual desire,
and intense caring.

Theories of Love

Two main types of love
– Passionate or Romantic Love
 Intense physiological arousal, psychological interest, sexual
desire, being “in love”
 Predominates in the early part of a romantic relationship
– Companionate or Affectionate Love
 Deep, caring affection for a person
 Necessary for relationships to succeed in the long term

Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of love
– Complete or consummate love occurs when all 3 of the
following are present
 Intimacy: closeness/connectedness
 Passion: physical and sexual attraction
 Commitment: cognition of loving someone/long-term
maintenance of relationship
Aggression
Aggression is behavior intended to hurt or destroy
 Biological Influences

– Genetic Influences
 Animals bred for aggression
 Identical twin correlation
– Neural Influences
 Amygdala in limbic system triggers it
 Frontal cortex inhibits it
 Damage to or immaturity of frontal cortex?
– Biochemical Influences
 Testosterone levels and behavior – a 2-way street
 Alcohol
Aggression

Psychosocial Causes of Aggression
– Frustration-Aggression Principle
– Aversive stimuli such as hot temperatures,
physical pain or foul odors
– Reinforcement
– Ostracism
– Exposure to violent television or video games
(disproving catharsis hypothesis)
Leadership

Great person theory
– Personal qualities qualify one to lead

Right place-right time theory
– Circumstances are optimal for individual with
particular characteristics

Fielder’s Contingency Theory
– Depends on the traits of the leader, the
circumstances, and the interaction of the group itself.
– Task-Oriented vs. Relationship Oriented Leaders
– In extreme circumstances – very good or very bad –
best to be task oriented.
– In moderate circumstances, best to be relationship
oriented.