Transcript Social Psychology

Myers’ PSYCHOLOGY
(7th Ed)
Chapter 18
Social Psychology
James A. McCubbin, PhD
Clemson University
Worth Publishers
1
Ch. 18: Social Psychology
Social Thinking
 Social Psychology: scientific study of how we think
about, influence, & relate to one another
 Attribution Theory: How we “attribute” something to
someone…to us…or to others…
 tendency to give a causal explanation for someone’s
behavior, often by crediting either the situation or the
person’s disposition… situational vs. dispositional factors
 Fundamental Attribution Error
 tendency for observers, when analyzing others’ behaviors,
to underestimate how much of the situation is to blame…&
to overestimate the impact of personal disposition
 Attitude
 belief & feeling that influences us to respond in a particular
way to objects, people & events
2
Fundamental Attribution Error
3
Social Thinking
 How we explain someone else’s behavior affects
how we react to it …
“It’s because…..”
Situational attribution
“Maybe that driver is ill.”
Tolerant reaction
(proceed cautiously, allow
driver a wide berth)
Dispositional attribution
“Crazy driver!”
Unfavorable reaction
(speed up and race past 4the
other driver, give a dirty look)
Negative behavior
Social Thinking
 Our behavior is affected by our inner attitudes as well
as by external social influences:
Internal attitudes + External attitudes =
Behavior effects
Internal
attitudes
External social
influences
Behavior
5
Social Thinking
 Attitudes
follow
behavior…
which follow
attitudes…
which follow
behavior...etc..
 Cooperative
actions feed
mutual liking…
...encouraging
us to like
another…
So...Smile at
someone! 
6
Social Thinking
PERSUASION: How we influence & are influenced by others
CENTRAL ROUTE TO PERSUASION vs.
PERIPHERAL ROUTE TO PERSUATION: (NOT in your book!)
Which tends to be a stronger, longer lasting change?
Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon: If you ask ppl 1st agreed
for a small request…then later make a larger request = more
compliance (going along..) on the later requests
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL ROLES (aka “roles”):
set of expectations about a social position…can affect how we
behave & expect others to behave
 How ppl in a particular position should behave
 Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment: Looked at
social roles in his “prisoner/guard” study using
college students (p. b-700) D-M video
7
Foot-in-the –Door Phenomenon is a form of persuasion
that has been used in sales, in politics, in cult-behavior:
Used by communists, liberals, conservatives, humanitarian
groups, Muslims, Christians, atheists, etc.… It is very
effective!
Good EX:
N. Koreans
on US POW’s
in ‘50’s
8
*Central Route to Persuasion vs. Peripheral Route to persuasion:
Which tends to be a stronger, longer lasting change?
The Central Route to Persuasion involves being persuaded by
the arguments or the content of the message.
EX: You hear a political debate & decide to vote for a candidate
because you found the candidates views & arguments very
convincing. Tends to = a more lasting belief change
The Peripheral Route to Persuasion involves being persuaded in
a way not based on the arguments or the message content, but
other factors
EX: after reading a political debate you may decide to vote for a
candidate because you like the sound of the person's voice, or the
person went to the same university as you did…or someone you
admire (EX’s: Mel Gibson, Bruce Springsteen) supports & speaks for
the candidate.
Can also involve using superficial cues such as the attractiveness
of the speaker, his/her accumulated wealth, etc.
This is more susceptible to an attitude change later
9
10
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment & the
Effects of Social Roles on Our Behaviors
11
Stanford Prison Study &
Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq:
Which is real & which is
“set up?”
Would good Americans do this?
12
Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Leon Festinger
We try to reduce the discomfort (dissonance) we feel
when two of our thoughts (cognitions) are inconsistent
EX: When we become aware that our attitudes & our
actions clash, we reduce resulting dissonance
13
Dilbert Cartoon:
“Dogbert” strikes again...this time using Cognitive
Dissonance!
 changing our attitudes…Clemson/Carolina???
14
Cognitive Dissonance: Another Ex:
15
Social Influence: Effects of others on us…
Be sure you can differentiate!
AND ID which famous psych study (or concept) goes with
which idea..
 Obedience: following orders from someone in a position of
authority over us (St. M.?)
 Compliance: going along w/ a request from someone who
is NOT in a position of authority…you just choose to do so
(Ft N dr??)
 Conformity: adjusting one’s behavior or thinking to
coincide with a group standard…there’s no request…you just
choose to (Sol.As.?)
 Normative Social Influence: influence resulting from a
person’s desire to gain approval or avoid disapproval
 Chameleon Effect: unconsciously mimicking others
expressions, emotions, moods (someone smiles, you smile)
 relates to mood linkage & mood contagion
16
Social Influence
 The chameleon effect: Human see, human do…
 If 1 shakes foot, etc., others around will copy (Yawning??)
 Moods & chameleon effect: we also “catch” others’ moods
(mood linkage & mood contagion)
Number
of times
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Participant
rubs face
Confederate rubs face
Participant
shakes foot
Confederate shakes foot17
Mood linkage/mood contagion
& Mob violence?
18
Social Influence: Asch’s experiment on conformity…
 Informational Social
Influence:
Conforming:
 Influence resulting from
one’s willingness to
accept others’ opinions
about reality
 Happens especially as a
larger & larger group
agrees, OR if those
agreeing have
higher status or
“coolness” levels
 Participant shows
confusion RE: his
answer vs. others
answers…
19
Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Study:
Yale University
20
Social Influence
 Milgram’s follow-up obedience experiment
21
Social Influence
 Some individuals resist social coercion (force).
Student stands up to tank in Tiananmen Square in
Beijing, China (translates literally to Gate of Heavenly Peace)
22
Individualistic cultures vs. Collectivist Cultures:
Discovering Psy Video: Prg. 26: Cultural Psych
23
Social Facilitation vs. Social Loafing:
 Social Facilitation: improved performance of tasks in
the presence of others…
-We do better around others…if ppl we know are watching
 occurs with simple or well-learned tasks but not with
tasks that are difficult or not yet mastered
 Social Loafing: tendency for people in a group to exert
less effort when pooling their efforts toward attaining a
common goal than when individually accountable… do worse
around others
24
Social Facilitation:
Sometimes when others are working hard, we don’t wanna’
be seen as the “slacker” so we work harder, too!
25
Social Loafing: aka “Water cooler effect:”
Others can influence us to goof off in order to
be “one o’ the gang...”
And if the others are doing it, why should I sweat it??
Classic example: Tug-o-War : Is it really up to ME?
26
Social Facilitation ALSO relates to:
What we do well, we do better in front of an audience
…especially a friendly audience:
The
Home
court
advantage!
27
 Deindividuation
Loss of self-awareness & self-restraint in group situations
that foster arousal & anonymity (mob behavior..Halloween?)
 Can lose individual idea of responsibility…& feel no one will
know it was you…”It was ALL of us…” “But
EVERYbody was doing it!” “Nobody knows me
here... “
 Group Polarization: “Twelve Angry Men”
 enhancement of a group’s prevailing attitudes through
discussion within the group
 Those w/ similar ideas in beginning become even
STRONGER and more assured of their ideas & beliefs
 EX: liberals around liberals become more liberal…conservatives
around conservatives become more conservative….
 Tend to pull toward the group attitudes
 What can pull them over? If 1 who can see another
possibility will communicate w/ others & hold fast to
convictions, others may “change poles”
28
Groupthink: mode of thinking that occurs when the desire
for harmony in a decision-making group overrides realistic
appraisal of alternatives
 Leaders & “Yes-men”: big problem w/ powerful people who
only want those who agree w/ them
29
30
Social Influence p. 711)
If we can just DISCUSS an issue,
maybe we can get good ideas??
 Group
Polarization:
If a group is
like-minded,
discussion
makes those
ideas stronger…
 ”See we’re
right!!”
 Low-prejudice
groups tend to
lessen
prejudice…but
hi-prejudice
ones tend to
increase
prejudice… 31
Social Relations
 Discrimination: actual acts against people of a particular
group b/c they are a part of that group
 Prejudice
 an unjustifiable (& usually negative) attitude toward a group
& its members
 involves stereotyped beliefs, negative feelings, & a
predisposition to discriminatory action
 Stereotype
 a generalized (sometimes accurate, but often overgeneralized) belief about a group of people
 The other race effect: “They all look alike” Tendency to
see very little differences w/in ppl from another race
 In-group
 “Us”- people with whom one shares a common identity
 Out-group
 “Them”- those perceived as different or apart from one’s ingroup
32
Stereotypes USA??

IN vs. OUT Group
33
Power of the individual vs. minority
influence:
When the few control
ideas/actions of the many...
 A few committed ppl can have tremendous influence on
others...and can be for good—or not so good.. (See
Margaret Mead quote...)
 Gandhi, Jesus, Dr. ML King, Hitler, K. Marx—and then
over-throw of czar in 1917...THEN down-fall of of
communist USSR in 1989.
---Can also be Jim Jones...David Koresh...& other cult
leaders (BTW: “cult” means to care strongly about
something)
Committed ppl can convince others—and bring great changes
Group think: how we pull to majority—
Minority influence: How some begin in small
Charismatic? Can equal very strong leadership ability 34
Prejudice:
KNOW Browneyes/Blueeyes study
Jane Elliot
below, Left
35
Social Relations
 Does perception change with race?
 If you think not, read Black like Me…
36
Social Relations
Americans today express much less racial & gender
prejudice …voting for women OR keeping minorities
OUT… But subtle prejudice continues…
 ?: Do you think it is better to express it if you feel it…or
to know it should not be stated?
37
Social Relations
 In-group Bias
 tendency people have to favor one’s own group and
to see them in a more positive light
 “halo-effect” can relate to this: those we see
positively we notice their good and excuse their bad
times (“situational/dispositional”?)
 Scapegoat Theory
 theory that prejudice provides an outlet for anger
by providing someone to blame
 EX: You don’t get into a college you want—
probably b/c of less deserving ppl being accepted!
And it is NOT fair!
38
 Just-World Phenomenon
 Tendency of people to believe the world is just &
that ppl get what they deserve... & deserve what
they get
 “If ppl are poor, it is their own fault b/c they
COULD fix it…there are no excuses!”
 BUT...if bad happens to me/mine, it is out of
my control! (situational vs. dispositional again??)
 When it happens to us or ppl we know/like, our excuses
for them are part of the “in-group bias”
This can involve many aspects…
If someone is successful, it is due to his/her being a
deserving person
Think about Donald Trump…He deserves the success
he has, right?
39
‘Course it didn’t hurt that he was a kid of a wealthy
NYC real estate developer who supported his early
business efforts and left him a bunch of $$
Do you think he had an early belief in his ability to
succeed? Do you think this belief was supported
and encouraged?
Would these ppl have the same chance for success in
the USA?
A kid raised in a small mountain town with poor
schools and an abusive parent?
A kid in a high crime area of a large city w/ a single
parent who is hooked on drugs?
Do you believe these kids ever think they have a
chance at a “regular, successful” life?
How might that be true?
40
Just-world-phenomenon is not just about the
possibility of success—
It also addresses the idea that if bad things happen
to you, you did something to bring it on yourself
(EX: The Biblical Job—neighbors said he must have
made God angry)
If a young woman is wearing revealing clothing and is
flirtatious, is it her own fault if someone rapes her?
If someone is laid off of their job and loses their
house and ends up homeless, is it his/her own fault?
(Ever hear that most ppl are about “1 paycheck away
from homeless?”)
41
Social Relations
 IF you get on a plane and you see 2 men who look
“Muslim, ” would you get nervous?
 Vivid cases (9/11 terrorists) feed stereotypes
42
Violence and Aggression: Environmental
effects on aggression in society:
43
Social Relations and sexual
violence: pp.723-725
 Men who view
porn are less
likely to see a
rape victim AS
a victim
 But does porn
cause rape to
increase?
 Most studies
do not directly
support that
idea
44
Aggression: physical or verbal behavior
that’s intended to hurt or to destroy
Video games and violence (pp. 725-6)
Parallels betw. smoking/cancer & media
violence/aggression (top-726)
Evidence has been increasing media violence and
violent behaviors in children and adolescents
Paul Boxer, ass’t prof. of psy., Rutgers University , Newark, involved since
2004 in research funded by the CDC into media violence & its relation to
serious youth violence & criminal behavior:
“Even in conjunction with other factors, our research shows
that media violence does enhance violent behavior,” Boxer
states. “On average, adolescents who were not exposed to
violent media are not as prone to violent behavior.”
http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/11/20/media-violence-linked-toaggression/3379.html
45
Frustration-Aggression Principle: idea that
frustration (the blocking of an attempt to achieve some
goal) creates anger, which can generate aggression
--NOT supported strongly by evidence: causes
SOME...but NOT all
46
Doing good ...for goodness sake:
Altruism: unselfish regard for the welfare of others
 doing things for others… even if it puts us at risk…
EX’s: ??
 MIRROR neurons affect this…If we see others helping
others, we are more likely to jump in and help also
Kitty Genovese: What happened?
 Bystander Effect (p. 735)
 1964: Kitty Genovese situation led psy to study
this phenomenon
 tendency for any given bystander to be less likely
to give aid if other bystanders are present
(Note: has been questions as to accuracy of this incident in
recent years, but it did get the study started, & the effect
HAS been validated in other instances’events)
47
Kitty Genovese & the places she was
attacked…repeatedly.
48
Social Relations
Effects of people on other people:
By-Stander Effect:
 People were
horrified &
tried to blame
it on “the
city”…but it
can be seen
anywhere
 So what should
you do to keep
this from
happening?
49
 Diffusion of responsibility: Fact that when others
are present, we feel less responsibility for others & for
our own behavior
 The decision-making process for bystander
intervention…
 How to avoid the bystander effect:
BE WILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY…
50
Important notes on Aggression Studies: NO 1 thing!
 Genetics/biology: Aggression “markers” (like genetic traits) have
been found on Y the chromosome: testosterone
Affects temperament…autonomic (NS??) reactions…
Electrode in amydale of a mild-mannered person increased instances
 Environment: Family? Friends? Temperature? Exposure to guns
(Studies: females handling guns--increased testosterone)
Lack of father-care: Caring, involved father cuts chances (single mom stress?)
 Aversive events: Frustration (frustration/aggression principle?)
Exposure to war?
 Sexual violence: Pornography? Group factors?
 Catharsis Hypothesis? Does watching aggressive acts or playing
aggressive games help “get our aggression out?”
No…is actually the opposite! Tends to INCREASE
 Media: Mirror neurons? What type (s) of learning could be involved?
Bobo… Watching violent TV/movies can increase—but not as much
as PLAYING violent video games
 Ostracism & us/them: Ppl who are excluded can react w/ violence
 Group effects? Deindividuation & diffusion of responsibility: 51
Social Relations: Social
Conflict: perceived
incompatibility of
actions, goals, or ideas
p. 727
Social Trap
trap & game matrix:
Person 1
Person 2
Choose B
Choose A
Choose A
Choose B
Optimal
outcome
 a situation in which
the conflicting
parties, by each
rationally pursuing
their self-interest,
become caught in
mutually
destructive
behavior
 ALL can lose!
Probable
outcome
In Social traps...
 by pursuing our
own self-interest &
not trusting
others, we can52
ALL end up losers
Social Trap
Win-Win: Everyone wins!
Win-Lose: One winner, other loses
Lose-Lose: Both end up losing
If you try to get yourself more, you may
end up with lose-lose
53
Extra Credit Opportunity!!
I will give you an index card
Do not speak to anyone else or let them see what you
are writing.
Write your name onto it.
You will write one of the following things on your card—
IF the whole class writes "10" everyone gets 10
extra credit points
If one-to-three people write "15" ONLY THOSE
PPL. GET extra credit - the rest of class gets
NONE
If FOUR or more people write "15" and get selfish:
NO ONE IN THE CLASS GETS POINTS
54
*IF the whole class writes "10" everyone gets 10 extra
credit points-WIN WIN FOR ALL!
*If one-to-three people write "15" ONLY THOSE PPL.
GET extra credit - the rest of class gets NONE! These
students also have incentive of 15 points, not just 10!
this is a WIN for the "15ers" and LOSE for those who
wrote 10
*If FOUR or more people write "15" and get selfish: NO
ONE IN THE CLASS GETS POINTS (Lose-lose situation)
55
PEACE Psychology: Resolving Conflicts
Enemy perceptions:
**US vs. THEM... Great Satan? The evil empire?
Biased perceptions: On p. 728: How do the
following terms relate to this?
 Mirror-image perceptions (Great Satan! The evil empire!)
 Self-serving bias
 Fundamental attribution error
 Stereotypes
 Polarizing
 Groupthink
 Self-fulfulling prophecy
56
National & international Cooperation:
Making a better world?
Peacemaking Psychology:
How can ppl make peace?
Cooperation, communication, & conciliation
Can sometimes change antagonism that comes
from prejudice, aggression, & conflicts into
attitudes that promote peace…
 Cooperation: Work for good of both on
something—economics?
 Communication: Talks: at least listen...does
not require agreement
 Conciliation: Each gives a bit to get closer to
shared goal
NOTE: “Compromise” is NOT a 4-letter word!!57
 Reciprocity Norm: If you give me a present, I feel I
need to give you a present, too…
 Social Exchange Theory:
Win-win
Lose-win
Lose-lose
 Says our social behavior is an exchange process,
the aim of which is to maximize benefits & minimize
costs
 Win-win: We both get something & can feel valued! EX:?
 Lose-win: One gets something…other loses & feels
resentment
EX: ?
 Lose-lose: things end up so bad that both end up losing
significant things…
EX:?
 WHICH seems best in what situations?
58
Super-ordinate Goals
Shared goals that override differences (are
more important than) among people &
require their cooperation
“The need to solve this problem is
bigger than both of us”
EX: nuclear weapons?
59
G.R.I.T.:
Graduated (little by little..)
…& Reciprocated (I do 1 thing, U do 1 thing)
Initiatives in …
Tension-reduction
Among nations:
I give a bit, you give a bit…
 a strategy designed to decrease international
tensions & make peace
 one side announces recognition of mutual
interests & initiates a small conciliatory act… I’ll
do a bit here…
 Opens door for reciprocation by other party… Me,
too…& then I’ll even give…
 (Related to “reciprocity norm..” If you give me a
present for Christmas, I HAVE to give you one
60
too!! Gee…I haven’t wrapped your yet…!)
LOVE & social relations:
 Forming Relationships: How we decide we like or do
not ppl
 Mere Exposure Effect:
Repeated exposure to novel (new) stimuli increases the
liking of them…  WE PREFER WHAT WE ARE USED TO
So…The more we are around others, more we are used
to them & like them
Proximity: Relates to mere exposure effect: Those who
live near us, who are in classes with us, who go to
activities with us (teams, dance, church, etc.), we are
more likely to be attracted to
Commonalities: NOT true that opposites attract—we
are MOST likely to choose ppl more like us in culture,
socio-economic status, attractiveness (avg. & avg.,
handsome & pretty, etc.), educational values, moral
values, etc.
61
WHAT is …& is not … “True Love?”
 Passionate Love
 an aroused state of intense positive absorption
in another
 usually present at the beginning of a love
relationship
 Companionate Love
 deep affectionate attachment we feel for those
with whom our lives are intertwined long-term
 This is more of a “true love”….we still love them
though we know all of their quirks, faults,
annoying behaviors, etc.
 Line between love/hate sometimes blurs when
we are very angry…but we work things out
62
Social Relations:
What increases chances of strong relationships?
Equity: a condition in which people receive from
a relationship in proportion to what they give to it
--each person works just as hard to make things
good for the other
--each values the other and does not try to belittle
the other or feel superior to them
(“I got the best deal” …??)
Self-Disclosure: revealing intimate aspects of
oneself to others…..being willing to share things
about ourselves
 R-E-S-P-E-C-T each other…& TRUST
63
Social Relations: Attractiveness
 Conceptions of attractiveness vary by culture
 What is “average” for a culture tends to be the most
“attractive”
 This is thought to be “adaptive”
(evolutionary)…Why?
--b/c familiar = usually safe
Men: prefer young-looking!
Women: Prefer status & wealth!
64
Anyone
starting to feel
like this in
AP Psy??

65