Transcript MRCPsych Part 1:Intergroup Behaviour and Social Psychology

Intergroup Behaviour and Social
Psychology
Dr Alexandra Hooper
Clinical Psychology CAMHS
Self-psychology
Self-Psychology
• Self-concept: Refers to the most complete description of an individual –
including attitudes held about the self and others, perceived relationship
with others and the environment etc.
– Self-esteem: The degree to which one holds oneself in high regard or values oneself.
Encompassing both high and low self-esteem. Low self-esteem has been associated with
a variety of psychiatric disorders (e.g. depression, anorexia, etc.). A high degree of social
support and social contact is associated with high self-esteem, so these become
protective factors.
– Self-image: Description of the self as it is imagined to be. The greater the discrepancy
between the actual self and self image may be related to certain affective disorders –
derived from personal experiences and the behaviour of others towards oneself. This
becomes self-reinforcing, as you behave in the way you view yourself.
– Self recognition and personal identity: Self recognition develops over
the first 2 years of life – an understanding of oneself as a distinct
individual
•
•
•
•
<3rd-4th month – little interest in own image in mirror
3rd – 6th month – reaches out to own image (same as toy)
1st year – can use reflection to determine location of object in ‘real world’
18th – 24th month – responds to own, unusual features seen in mirror (e.g. paint)
Interpersonal psychology
Interpersonal Psychology
• Person Perception: The perception of ourselves and others is
a central theme in social psychology. The behaviour of others
(and ourselves) has to be interpreted and understood –
through inferences made from observations of behaviour.
• Affiliation: Positive relationships that may vary greatly in
closeness, ranging from mere co-operation to romantic love.
Not sure whether this is a continuum, or whether these social
relationships vary along a range of dimensions and should be
regarded as distinct.
•
Friendship: Complex relationship influenced by –
– Physical attractiveness – important factor in the formation of friendships, seen
in young children. Beliefs about others are also dependant to some degree on
physical attractiveness – e.g. attractive men are regarded as more intelligent.
– Similarity – Extends beyond demographic factors such as age and social class
to psychological characteristics, with personality being of particular
importance. Even physical characteristics such as height are important.
– Exposure – Increases positive attitudes to others (unless a negative attitude
already exists, and then this increases). Any familiar object is more likely to
elicit a positive response.
– Proximity – In part due to convenience
Friendship theories
• The Exchange Theory: Individuals are concerned
with maximising personal gains from relationships
while minimising costs – essentially an economical
model of friendship.
• The Equity Theory: Primary concern is equality of
costs and rewards in both partners.
Social exchange theory
• We assess a relationship according to its
potential rewards and costs
Social matching theory
• All things being equal, individuals will tend to be
attracted to, and are more likely to pair with,
other individuals who are of the same or like
degree of physical attractiveness to themselves.
Attribution Theory
• Explanation for behaviour, ascribing personality
characteristics, motives, beliefs etc on the basis of observed
behaviour. It allows the behaviour to be explained and
understood, and for subsequent behaviour by that individual
to be predicted.
• Heider proposed that the individual was a ‘naïve scientist’
making observations and deriving explanations and predicting
on the basis of these.. Not particularly scientific – no testable
hypothesis.
Attribution theory
• Dimensions / factors in attribution
– Global / specific
• Outcome of certain tasks will determine outcome of others /
cause is unique to one task
– Internal /external
• Personal traits / Environment
– Controllable / uncontrollable
• We can alter outcome / we have no control
– Stable / Unstable
• Same behaviour on another occasion will yield same results
/ provide different results
Kelly (1967)
• Three types of information are used to make attributions:
1. Consensus: the extent to which others behave in the same way
2. Consistency: the extent to which the individual always behaves as
such
3. Distinctiveness: the extent to which this behaviour occurs in other
situations.
Criticisms of the model: In realistic situations individuals do not choose
actively to seek out such information, but instead make attributions
on a different basis (e.g. sex / age).
Fundamental Attribution Error
• Tendency to overestimate the extent to which internal and stable
characteristics (such as personality characteristics) motivate and cause
behaviour in others, while simultaneously underestimating external and
unstable (i.e. situational) factors.
• Results from a desire to predict behaviour in others – which requires
behaviour to be the result of stable personality characteristics rather than
transient situational factors.
• However, the attribution of our own behaviour tends to be primarily
situational – possibly due to unwillingness to regard self as driven by
unchanging characteristics, but instead as a response to the contingencies
present in a given situation
Social Behaviour
• The initial interactions will have a significant impact on
subsequent interactions and the interpretation of novel
information.
• We attribute their behaviour to some internal and stable
disposition, and potentially ambiguous behaviour understood
accordingly.
• First impressions do count!
Theory of Mind
• The ability to attribute mental and intentional states to oneself and
others. Allows the explanation and prediction of behaviour – importance
in the development of imaginary play, with both inanimate objects and
other peers. Individuals with Autism lack ‘theory of mind’:
–
–
–
–
Children with autism appear to show impaired imagination
Impairment may be discrete, affecting only the ability to represent mental states
Therefore not affecting other intellectual function.
Functions impaired will be those that rely on mental representations (e.g. inferring
behaviour)
– Social behaviour not relying on such representations will be unimpaired (e.g. greeting
someone)
Exercise
• Think of a person you consider to be a great
leader and list the characteristics that made
them so.
Orientation
• Task-Orientated: Maximising productivity e.g.
Motivating group
• Emotion-Orientated: Reduced inefficiency by
ensuring that the group remains happy.
• Not fulfilled by same individual
Lewin (1939)
• Three main leadership styles
– democratic-participative: acts with support of the
group and takes into account other opinions
– free reign- laissez-faire: relaxed, informal style that
promotes individuality
– autocratic- authoritarian: absolute authority, with
no requirement to consult others.
Leadership
• No single personality type- most people are
capable of being leaders if necessary
• The effectiveness of a leader is an interaction
between their style and the situation (Feidler).
• Good leaders have a predominant style but
use all three
Exercise
• Think of a situation when each of the three
Lewin styles of leadership would be
appropriate
Goleman’s leadership styles
•
The Coercive Style of Leadership
'The Dictator'
This is the dominant 'macho' leadership style. It is appropriate in
emergencies and severe situations, but otherwise will tend to disempower
and disillusion subordinates.
The Authoritative Style of Leadership
'The Visionary'
This style focuses on the goal or vision of the future and inspires others to
follow. This is appropriate when a new direction is required or a
clarification of the goals to be achieved.
The Affiliative Style of Leadership
'The People Person'
Here there is a focus on people, teambuilding, bonding and forging
alliances. This style is useful in creating teams or for healing dysfunctional
relationships.
Goleman’s leadership styles
•
The Democratic Style of Leadership
'The Listener'
This is a useful style to adopt when attempting to involve a wide range of
people in decision making or building a consensus.
The Pacesetting Style of Leadership
'The Superman/Superwoman'
Using this style, the leader sets an example by working to extremely high
standards of performance. This is useful to raise the stakes when a
competent and motivated team is working well.
The Coaching Style of Leadership
'The Nurturer'
This style focuses on helping to improve people's strengths, and is
especially useful in building skills to develop managers and future leaders.
Intergroup behaviour
Social Influence
• Would you act in a way that was against your
basic principles if you were given instruction
to do so by a person in authority?
Methodology
Methodology
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zlCybd
vdg
Conclusions
• "With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle
under the demands of authority and perform actions that
were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life
responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of
authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the
uncritical acceptance of the experimenter's definition of the
situation, into performing harsh acts. .A substantial
proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective
of the content of the act and without limitations of
conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes
from a legitimate authority." (1965)
Milgram's last subject was tested 4 days before
Adolf Eichmann was hanged for war crimes he
committed in obedience to his superior
officer, Adolf Hitler.
Social Influence
• Performance can be affected by the presence
of others– social facilitation/ coactive effect- if the task is
familiar the presence of others may improve
performance
– social loafing/ Angelman effect- the presence of
others produces anonymity and reduces the effort
at the task.
Social Influence
• Influences on behaviour include– informational influence- if internalise information
it can alter attitudes and therefore behaviours
– normative influence- act towards the norm of the
group with compliance but without changing
attitude.
Social Influence: Conformity
• The Asch Paradigm
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1l
DhA
Conformity
• Conformity occurred in 1/3 of situations
• When stating correct response – apparent
discomfort
• Intelligence, high self-efficacy beliefs, internal
locus of control – internal factors which
reduce effect of conformity pressures.
Adding the Element of Interaction
• Groups interact with one another to make
judgments and decisions.
– E.g. Juries, Top Management Teams, Presidential
Cabinets.
• Key Questions:
– How judgments made by individuals compare to
judgments made by a group?
– Does discussion lead groups to make good
decisions or bad decisions?
Exercise
Helen is a writer who is said to have considerable
creative talent but who so far has been earning a
comfortable living writing cheap Westerns. Recently
she has come up with an idea for a potentially
significant novel. If it could be written and accepted,
it might have considerable literary impact and be a
boost to her career. On the other hand, if she cannot
work out her idea, or the novel is a flop, she will have
expended considerable time and energy without pay.
(Stoner, 1961)
Decision: What Should Helen Do?
Individually and group.
• Imagine that you are advising Helen. Please
check the lowest probability that you would
consider acceptable for Helen to write the
novel.
__ 1/10
__ 6/10
__ 2/10
__ 7/10
__ 3/10
__ 8/10
__ 4/10
__ 9/10
__ 5/10
__ 10/10
Result: Groups Shift Toward Risk
• Individuals marked their answers first while
alone, and then again after discussing their
opinions with a group.
• Groups made riskier decision than individuals.
• Risky Shift: A group consensus is almost
always “riskier” than the average decision
made by individuals prior to a group
discussion
The Cautious Shift??
• Many experiments demonstrated a shift toward
risk, but sometimes people demonstrated a
shift toward caution after the group discussion.
• Inconsistent results created major problems.
– Is there a risky and a cautious shift?
Cautious shift…
• “Roger” is a young married man with two
school aged children and a secure but low
paying job. Roger can afford life’s necessities
but few of its luxuries. He hears that the stock
of a relatively unknown company may soon
triple in value if its new product is favorably
received, but decline precipitously if it fails.
Roger has no savings. To invest in the
company he is considering selling his life
insurance policy.”
Risky or cautious advice?
• Given Roger’s situation, would you advise him
to sell his life insurance policy and make the
risky investment?
• If a group were to discuss this issue, what
might their initial tendency be: To advise the
risky decision or the cautious decision?
Beyond the Risky Shift
• The “Risky Shift” is not about risk at all.
• Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969) reconceptualized the risky shift as a more
general phenomenon called group polarization.
• Group Polarization: A group discussion
strengthens the average inclination of group
members.
Group Polarisation example
• Moscovici examined French student’s attitudes
toward Americans (initially negative) and
toward de Gaulle (initially positive).
• Attitudes toward Americans became MORE
negative after the discussion than before the
discussion.
• Attitudes toward de Gaulle became MORE
positive after the discussion than before the
discussion.
Why do groups polarise?
• Discussion produces a commitment.
– People become more committed to a
viewpoint when they express that viewpoint
publicly and therefore they become more
extreme in their judgments.
– No discussion: No polarisation
Polarisation
• If individuals are asked to rate their opinions on a subject, and
then grouped and asked to reach a decision on the same
subject as a group, the ultimate decision reached by the
group will tend to be more extreme than the aggregated
opinions of the individual group members.
Deindividuation
• The individuality of members of the group
becomes subordinate to the behaviour of the
whole
• Can you think of examples where this is
positive and negative?
Intergroup behaviour
What groups do we belong to that
contribute to our identity?
Social Identity Theory
• Personal identity is influenced by self esteem
• Social identity defined by the groups we belong to.
• Varying levels of identity in individuals e.g. low
personal identity may need higher social identity.
• Tajfel and Turner- ‘in group bias’ and aggression to
those not in the group
Intergroup Behaviour
• Ingroup: The group with which an individual
identifies himself
– Can be a member of many groups
• Outgroup: Group with which the individual
does not identify with
Prejudice
• The adoption of an attitude on the basis of
limited or insufficient information – the
implication being that the attitude is in some
sense unfair or unwarranted
– May be positive or negative
– Relies heavily on stereotypes
Stereotypes
• Crude generalisations used to characterise
members of a group
– May be positive or negative
– Resistant to change but are flexible
– Categorisation in social context
– Becomes self-fulfilling – observations become
biased.
Intergroup Hostility
• Minimal group experiments: where subjects are randomly
assigned to membership of a group on some spurious
criterion
– Common goals
– Bias (e.g. lend money to same group)
– Suggests intergroup behaviour is a fundamental
characteristic of human social behaviour
• Strong instinctive tendencies to favour preferentially whichever
group one finds oneself a member of
Blue eyes / Brown eyes
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bWlTZZN
3DY
Zimbardo
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZwfNs1p
qG0
Social Identity
• Zimbardo- social identity can allow
deindividuation
• Diffuse responsibility onto the group and
conform to roles in the group
• Can lead people to act in extreme ways
Conclusion on social psychology
•
•
•
•
Relevant to many areas
Worth reading a decent text eg Gross
Easiest to learn by experiments
Some plain rote learning
True or False?