Transcript other - Forensic Consultation

Psychology in
Action (8e)
PowerPoint  Lecture Notes Presentation
Chapter 16:
Social Psychology
1
Lecture Overview

Our Thoughts About Others

Our Feelings About Others

Our Actions Toward Others

Applying Social Psychology to Social
Problems
2
Introductory Definition

Social Psychology (study of how other people
influence our thoughts, feelings, and actions)
3
Our Thoughts About Others

Attribution (an explanation for the cause
of behaviors or events)

To determine the cause we first decide
whether the behavior comes from an:
• internal (dispositional) cause, such
as personal characteristics, or
• external (situational) cause, such as
situational demands.
4
Our Thoughts About Others:
Mistaken Attributions
Fundamental Attribution Error:
misjudging causes of others’
behavior and attributing to
internal (dispositional) vs.
external (situational) ones
1.
•
Saliency bias may
explain focus on
dispositional causes.
5
Our Thoughts About Others:
Mistaken Attributions
2. Self-Serving Bias:

taking credit for our
successes, and

externalizing our failures
6
Our Thoughts About Others

Attitude (learned predisposition to respond cognitively,
affectively, and behaviorally to a particular object)
7
Our Thoughts About Others:
Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive Dissonance:
feeling of discomfort
created from a
discrepancy between
an attitude and
behavior or between
two competing attitudes
8
Attitudes Can Affect Actions
Cognitive dissonance theory, proposed by
Leon Festinger, argues that people feel
discomfort when their actions conflict
with their feelings and beliefs; they
reduce the discomfort by bringing their
attitudes more in line with their actions.
9
Our Thoughts About Others:
Cognitive Dissonance (Continued)
10
Our Thoughts About Others:
Cognitive Dissonance (Continued)
•
Festinger and Carlsmith’s Cognitive Dissonance
Study: Participants given very boring tasks to
complete, and then paid either $1 or
$20 to tell next participant the task
was “very enjoyable” and “fun.”
•
Result? Those paid $1 felt more
cognitive dissonance, therefore,
they changed their attitude more
about the boring tasks.
11
Attitudes


Attitudes are feelings, often
based on our beliefs, that
predispose us to respond in a
particular way to objects, people,
and events.
For example, we may feel dislike
for a person, because we believe
he or she is mean, and, as a
result, act unfriendly toward that
12
Attitudes Can Affect Actions
The foot-in-the-door phenomenon is the
tendency for people who agree to a small
request to comply later with a larger one.
Because doing becomes believing, a
trivial act makes the next act easier.
13
Attitudes Can Affect Actions
Influential Theory of Reasoned Action

The theory states that two major predictors
of behavior are attitudes toward the
behavior and subjective social norms.

A person’s attitude toward a behavior is a
function of the desirability of the possible
outcomes weighted by the likelihood of
those outcomes.

Subjective social norms reflect one’s
perception of whether significant others
approve of the behavior weighted by the
motivation to conform with those
14
Actions Can Affect Attitudes


One of social psychology’s most
significant findings is that action shapes
attitude.
For example, the low-ball technique (e.g.,
After a customer has signed on to buy a
new car because of its very low price, the
salesperson reports that the sales
manager won’t agree because “we’d be
losing money.” )
15
Actions Can Affect Attitudes
Brainwashing: Writing things down, even if
you disagreed with them, eventually you
will begin to believe.

However, they soon seem to reflect our
true self as we adopt attitudes in keeping
with our roles.
16
Attitudes Can Affect Actions
Cognitive dissonance theory, proposed by
Leon Festinger, argues that people feel
discomfort when their actions conflict
with their feelings and beliefs; they
reduce the discomfort by bringing their
attitudes more in line with their actions.
17
The Justification of Effort

Cognitive dissonance theorists have
predicted that working hard to attain a
goal makes the goal more attractive than
the same goal obtained with no effort.
18
Abu Ghraib: an
atrocity-producing situation



Philip Zimbardo states, “It’'s not
that we put bad apples in a good
barrel.
We put good apples in a bad
barrel. The barrel corrupts
anything that it touches.”
The following factors seem
important in understanding the
19
Abu Ghraib: an
atrocity-producing situation



A prison is a place of enormous power
differential. Guards have total power
over prisoners who are powerless.
Aversive experiences predispose one to
anger and aggression.
A novel environment without established
norms for acceptable behavior lead us to
look to others for direction, especially to
those in charge.
20
Abu Ghraib: an
atrocity-producing situation


“Peer modeling” also helps to
define reality. When a few soldiers
took the lead in abusing prisoners
and establishing “appropriate”
standards for behavior, the rest
followed.
A “macho” culture was established
for both male and female guards
21
Abu Ghraib: an
atrocity-producing situation


Dehumanization of the prisoners
as animals or scum was made
easier in Iraq because of the
foreign language and customs
A “we” versus “they” mentality
existed.
22
Abu Ghraib: an
atrocity-producing situation

The mechanics of “moral disengagement”
were evident. In this process, normally
moral people temporarily detach
themselves from principle and reframe
evil behavior as necessary and even
worthy. Some minimized or
underestimated the harmful
consequences of their actions by
relabeling or sanitizing it as “all fun and
games.”
23
Abu Ghraib: an
atrocity-producing situation


Deindividuation of the guards
diffused responsibility and
undermined self-restraint.
Unresponsive bystanders, who
had private concerns, did not
openly disagree or challenge the
immoral behavior going on in the
prison.
24
The Chameleon Effect
The chameleon effect refers to our natural
tendency to mimic others.

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.
25
Asch’s Experiments on Conformity
Conformity is adjusting one’s
behavior or thinking to coincide
with a group standard.
 Solomon Asch found that under
certain conditions, people will
conform to a group’s judgment,
even when it is clearly incorrect.
26
Asch’s Experiments on Conformity

Experiments indicate that conformity
increases when we feel incompetent or
insecure, admire the group’s status and
attractiveness, have made no prior
commitment to a response, are being
observed by other group members,
come from a culture than encourages
respect for social standards, and are in
a group with at least three people who
are unanimous in their judgment.
27
Normative and Informational Social
Influence


We are sensitive to social norms
and so we sometimes conform to
gain social approval (normative
social influence).
At other times, we accept
information about reality provided
by the group (informational
social influence).
28
Our Feelings About Others:
Prejudice and Discrimination


Prejudice
(learned, generally
negative, attitude
toward members of a
group)
Discrimination
(negative behaviors
directed at members
of a group)
29
30
Our Feelings About Others:
Prejudice and Discrimination (Cont.)

1.
2.
3.
Three components of prejudice:
Cognitive (stereotype--set of beliefs about
the characteristics of people in a group
generalized to all group members)
Affective (feelings associated with objects
of prejudice)
Behavioral (discrimination--negative
behaviors directed at members of a group)
31
Our Feelings About Others:
Sources of Prejudice and Discrimination
1. Learned response
2. Mental shortcut
•
in-group favoritism (in-group viewed
more positively than out-group)
•
out-group homogeneity effect (outgroup judged as less diverse than ingroup)
3. Economic and political competition
4. Displaced aggression
32
Our Feelings About Others:
Interpersonal Attraction

Interpersonal Attraction
(positive feelings
toward another)

Three Key Factors:
Physical Attractiveness
Proximity (geographic closeness)
Similarity (need complementarity vs. need
compatibility)
•
•
•
33
Our Feelings About Others: Interpersonal
Attraction
(Liking and Loving)

Liking is a favorable
evaluation of another.

Loving can be defined
in terms of caring,
attachment, and
intimacy.
34
Our Feelings About Others: Interpersonal
Attraction (Liking and Loving)

Sample items from Rubin’s liking
and loving test:
35
Our Feelings About Others:
Interpersonal Attraction (Continued)
•
Romantic Love
(erotic attraction with
future expectations)
•
Companionate Love
(lasting attraction
based on trust,
caring, tolerance,
and friendship)
36
Our Actions Toward Others:
Social Influence

Conformity (changing behavior because
of real or imagined group pressure)

Obedience (following direct
commands, usually from
an authority figure)
37
Our Actions Toward Others:
Conformity
Asch’s Conformity Study:
• Participants were asked
to select the line closest
in length to X.
• When confederates gave
obviously wrong answers
(A or C), more than 1/3
conformed and agreed
with the incorrect choices.
38
Our Actions Toward Others:
Conformity (Continued)
Why do we conform?
• Normative Social Influence
(need for approval and acceptance)
• Informational Social Influence
(need for information and direction)
• Reference Groups (people we conform to
because we like and admire them and
want to be like them)
39
Our Actions Toward Others:
Obedience

Milgram’s obedience study: Participants
serving as “teachers” are ordered to
continue shocking someone with a known
heart condition who is begging to be
released.

Result? 65% of “teachers” delivered
highest level of shock (450 volts) to the
“learner.”
40
Our Actions Toward Others:
Obedience
Milgram’s
“Shock
Generator”
41
Our Actions Toward Others:
Obedience
Four Major Factors Affecting Obedience:
1. Legitimacy and closeness of the
authority figure
2. Remoteness of the victim
3. Assignment of responsibility
4. Modeling/imitation
42
Our Actions Toward Others: Obedience
43
Our Actions Toward Others:
Group Processes

Group membership involves:
 Roles
(set of behavioral patterns connected with
particular social positions)
 Deindividuation
(reduced self-consciousness, inhibition,
and personal responsibility)
44
Group Processes: “Power of the
Situation”
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study:
• Students were randomly assigned
as “prisoners” or “guards.”
• Original study scheduled to last for
2 weeks but terminated after 6 days
due to alarming psychological
changes in both “prisoners” and
“guards.”
45
Group Processes: Problems with
Decision Making

Group polarization (group
movement toward either
a riskier or more
conservative decision;
result depends on the
members’ initial dominant
tendency)

Groupthink (faulty
decision making
occurring when a highly
cohesive group seeks
agreement and avoids
inconsistent
information)
46
Our Actions Toward Others:
Group Processes (Continued)
Symptoms of Groupthink:







Illusion of invulnerability
Belief in the morality of the group
Collective rationalizations
Stereotypes of out-groups
Self-censorship
Illusion of unanimity
Direct pressure on dissenters
47
Our Actions Toward Others:
Aggression

Aggression
(any behavior
intended to
harm someone)
48
Our Actions Toward Others:
Aggression (Continued)

Biological Factors in
Aggression: instincts,
genes, brain and nervous
system, hormones and
neurotransmitters,
substance abuse, and
other mental disorders
49
Our Actions Toward Others:
Aggression (Continued)

–
–
–
Psychosocial Factors
in Aggression:
Aversive stimuli
Culture and learning
Violent media/
video games
50
Our Actions Toward Others:
Aggression
(Continued)

•
•
Controlling or eliminating aggression:
Introduce incompatible responses
Improve social and communication skills
51
Our Actions Toward Others:
Altruism

Altruism
(actions designed
to help others with
no obvious benefit
to the helper)
52
Our Actions Toward Others: Altruism

Why do we help?

Egoistic Model
(helping motivated by
anticipated gain)

Empathy-Altruism Model
(helping motivated by
empathy)
53
Our Actions Toward Others: Altruism
54
Our Actions Toward Others: Altruism
Why Don’t We Help?
 Diffusion of
Responsibility
(dilution, or
diffusion, of
personal
responsibility)
 Ambiguous
Situation (unclear
what help is needed)
55
Altruism


Altruism is unselfish regard for
the welfare of others.
Donating blood, offering time and
effort to help victims of a natural
disaster, and risking one’s life to
save victims of genocide with no
expectation of personal reward are
examples of altruism.
56
Decision-Making Process in a
Bystander Intervention


The bystander effect is the tendency
for any given bystander to an
emergency to be less likely to give aid
if other bystanders are present.
Research on the bystander effects
indicates that to decide to help one
must (1) notice the event, (2) interpret
it as an emergency, or (3) assume
responsibility for helping.
57
Altruistic Behavior Explored
Social exchange theory proposes that
underlying all behavior, including helping,
is the desire to maximize our benefits
(which may include our own good
feelings) and minimize our costs.

For example, we will donate blood if we
anticipate that the rewards (e.g., social
approval, good feelings) for doing so
exceed the costs (e.g., time, discomfort).
58
Altruistic Behavior Explored
Social norms may also prescribe
altruistic behavior.
Reciprocity norm is the expectation
that people will help, not hurt,
those who have helped them.
Social-responsibility norm is the
expectation that people will help
those who are dependent on
them.
59
Five Beliefs that Propel Groups Toward
Conflict
The first core belief revolves around a
person’s enduring conviction that he or
she is better than other people in
important ways.

E.g., a sense of specialness,
deservingness, and entitlement, lack of
empathy and thus any appreciation of
others’ viewpoints and experiences.
60
Five Beliefs that Propel Groups Toward
Conflict
INJUSTICE: The second core belief
revolves around perceived
injustice at the hands of specific
others or by the world at large.
 The individual may identify as
unfair that which is only
unfortunate.
 It can lead him or her to engage in
retaliatory acts.
61
Five Beliefs that Propel Groups Toward
Conflict
Vulnerability: the third central belief
predisposing a person to social
conflict revolves around an
individual’s conviction that he or
she is perpetually living in harm’s
way.

Such vulnerability is associated with high
levels of anxiety, overly vigilant, bracing
themselves for failure, rejection, injury, or
loss.
62
Five Beliefs that Propel Groups Toward
Conflict
DISTRUST: The fourth important
belief involves distrust.
 At the individual level, the core
belief focuses on the presumed
hostility and evil intent of others.
 Harm is perceived to be intentional
or the result of extreme
negligence.
63
Five Beliefs that Propel Groups Toward
Conflict
DISTRUST Continued: The predisposition to
suspicion is sometimes transformed into
outright paranoia accompanied by
delusions of persecution.

People display a bias toward interpreting
others’ behavior as hostile and
malevolent even when other explanations
are available.
64
Five Beliefs that Propel Groups Toward
Conflict
Helplessness: The fifth and final core belief
is one of personal helplessness.

Individuals may be convinced that even
carefully planned and executed actions
will fail to produce good outcomes.

The belief tends to be self-perpetuating
because it diminishes motivation.
65
Encouraging Peaceful Cooperation and
Reducing Social Conflict.
Research suggests that
noncompetitive contact between
parties of equal status may help
reduce prejudice.
 More important, the discovery of
superordinate, or shared goals
that require cooperation can turn
enemies into friends.
66
Encouraging Peaceful Cooperation and
Reducing Social Conflict.

Communication, sometimes
through a third-party mediator,
also promotes mutual
understanding.

Finally, the GRIT strategy
suggests that reciprocated
conciliatory gestures bring peace.
67
Encouraging Peaceful Cooperation and
Reducing Social Conflict.
the GRIT strategy:
Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in
Tension- Reduction
1.
2.
3.
4.
Announce recognition of mutual interests
and intent to reduce tension.
Initiates 1 or more small conciliatory acts.
Without weakening retaliatory capability,
opens doors,
Reciprocate in kind (similar response)
68
The Dual Concern Model of Social Conflict
Pruitt, Rubin, & Kim identify five specific
strategies for dealing with social
conflict.

Hypothetical case of Peter Colger, who
has been looking forward to a twoweek vacation at a quiet mountain
lodge. His wife Mary, however, wants
to spend their vacation at a busy
seaside resort.
69
The Dual Concern Model of Social Conflict
Peter can respond by:
 Contending (arguing for the
merits of a mountain vacation,
even threatening to go alone if
Mary refuses)
 Problem-Solving approach and
attempt to find a vacation spot
that satisfies them both.
70
The Dual Concern Model of Social Conflict
Peter can respond by:
 Yield to Mary’s preference and
go to the seashore.
 Inactive (do nothing) in the
hope that the disagreement will
evaporate.
 Withdraw from the controversy
by deciding not to take any
vacation.
71
Our Actions Toward Others: Altruism

How Do We Increase Helping?
•
•
•
Assign responsibility
Reduce
ambiguity
Increase
societal rewards
72
Applying Social Psychology to
Social Problems


Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination
Overcoming Destructive Obedience
73
Applying Social Psychology to
Social Problems

•
•
•
•
Reducing Prejudice
and Discrimination
Cooperation and
superordinate goals
Increased contact
Cognitive retraining
Cognitive dissonance
74
Applying Social Psychology to
Social Problems:
Overcoming Destructive Obedience

•
•
•
•
•
Several important factors:
Socialization toward obedience
Power of the situation
Groupthink
Foot-in-the-door technique
(making a small request followed by
increasingly larger requests)
A relaxed moral guard
75