Transcript Unit 14: Social Psychology

UNIT 14

Social Psychology
 Attribution
theory (Fritz Helder)
 Dispositional vs. situational attribution
 Fundamental attribution error
 Self-serving
bias




They won only because the best athletes on the Central
State’s teams were out with injuries – talk about good
fortune.
▪
External (situational)
▪
Internal (dispositional)
▪
External (situational)
▪
Internal (dispositional)
They won because they have some of the best talent in
the country.
Anybody could win this region; the competition is so far
below average in comparison to the rest of the country.
They won because they put in a great deal of effort and
practice.



Fundamental Attribution Error –
underestimating situational influences
when evaluating the behavior of
someone else.
 He swerved into my lane because he
is a jerk.
Actor-observer bias – attributing others’
behaviors to disposition but your own
behaviors (even the same behaviors) to
situational factors.
 Example: He swerved into my lane
because he is a jerk, but I swerved
into the next lane because I was
trying to avoid an animal in the road.
Self-serving bias – crediting your own
successes to disposition, but attributing
your own failures to situation.
 Example: I won the game because I’m
talented.
I failed the test because the
questions were unfair.
 Personal relationships
 Political relationships
 Job
relationships
 Attitude
 Central route
persuasion
 Peripheral route
persuasion
 The



Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon
 “start small and build”
People come to believe in the idea they have
supported
Actions feed attitudes which feed actions
Easier to change attitudes than actions

Foot-in-the-door
phenomenon – the
tendency for people who
agree to a small request to
comply later with a larger
one (examples, “please
drive carefully”, Korean
War, People’s Temple,
training torturers, cheating)
 Role-Playing
Affects Attitudes
 Role
 Stanford
study
 Abu Ghraib
prison

Role playing - subjects
who play a role often
begin to “become” the
role (Zimbardo’s
prison study)
 Cognitive
Dissonance: Relief From
Tension
 Cognitive dissonance theory
 “Attitudes follow behavior”

Cognitive dissonance theory states that we are
motivated to reduce this uncomfortable feeling by
changing our beliefs to match our actions.

The dissonance (uncomfortable feeling) is less if
we feel that we were forced to perform the action.
Thus, the larger the pressure used to elicit the
overt behavior, the smaller the tendency to
change opinion.
 Chameleon
effect
 Conformity
 Solomon Asch study
CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE
SOLOMON ASCH STUDY
 Conditions
That Strengthen Conformity
 One is made to feel incompetent or insecure
 Group has at least three people
 Group is unanimous
 One admires the group’s status
 One has made no prior commitment
 Others in group observe one’s behavior
 One’s culture strongly encourages respect for
social standards
 Reasons
for Conforming
 Normative social influence
 Informational social influence
 Obedience
 Milgram’s studies
on obedience
▪ Procedure
▪ Results
▪ Ethics
▪ Follow up studies
“Teacher” is the subject in the
experiment who
administers the “shocks”.
“Learner” is the confederate
that received the shocks
(when out of sight, the
learner was a tape
recording)
“Authority” is the person
administering the
experiment; says “please go
on”.
CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE:
OBEDIENCE
CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE:
OBEDIENCE
CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE:
OBEDIENCE
CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE:
OBEDIENCE
Factors that increase
obedience:
1. Physical proximity of
authority figure.
2. Perceived legitimacy
of authority figure.
3. Distance or
depersonalization of
victim (learner).
4. Lack of a model for
defiance.
Factors that did NOT
affect obedience:
1. Age
2. Profession
3. Gender
4. Mention by “learner”
of a “slight heart
condition”.
 Ordinary
people being corrupted by
an evil situation
 Social
Facilitation
 Task difficulty
▪ Home vs. Away
 Crowding effects
▪ Comedians and Actors
▪ Practical lesson
 Social
Loafing
 Reasons why?
▪ Less accountability
▪ Tug of war
▪ Clapping/Shouting experiments
▪ View themselves as dispensable
▪ Group projects in school
 Deindividuation
 Less self conscious and less
restrained when in a group
situation
▪ Ku Klux Klan experiment
▪ Face paint/Masks

Group
Polarization

Group
Polarization

Group
Polarization

Group
Polarization

Group
Polarization

Group
Polarization
 Internet
 terrorist
organizations
▪ “us vs. them”

Groupthink
 Examining few




alternatives
Selective gathering of
information
Examining few
alternatives
Pressure to conform
within group or withhold
criticism
Collective
rationalization



Bay of Pigs
Challenger explosion
Iraq WMD


Marshall Plan
Cuban Missile Crisis

Culture
 Norm
 Personal space
 Pace of life
 Changes
over the generations

Social control (Power of the situation) vs
personal control (Power of the individual)
 Abu Ghraib
 Communisim
 Christianity
 Rosa Parks
 Inventions

Minority influence
 Prejudice
 Negative attitude
 Stereotype
 Beliefs, emotions, predispositions
 Discrimination
 Negative behavior
PREJUDICE:
HOW PREJUDICED ARE PEOPLE?
PREJUDICE:
HOW PREJUDICED ARE PEOPLE?
PREJUDICE:
HOW PREJUDICED ARE PEOPLE?
PREJUDICE:
HOW PREJUDICED ARE PEOPLE?
PREJUDICE:
HOW PREJUDICED ARE PEOPLE?
PREJUDICE:
HOW PREJUDICED ARE PEOPLE?

http://implicit.harvard.edu
Social Inequalities
 Blame the Victim dynamic
 Us and Them: Ingroup and Outgroup

 Ingroup (ingroup bias)
 Outgroup

Emotional roots of prejudice
 Scapegoat theory
▪ 9/11
Categorization
 Outgroup homogeneity
 Other-race effect/Own race-bias
▪ 3-9 months
 Vivid cases (9/11)
 Just-world phenomenon
 Hindsight bias


Aggression



Genetic Influences
 Twin studies
Neural Influences
 Amygdala
 Frontal Lobe
Biochemical Influences
 Influence of alcohol
 Higher levels of testosterone
 Lower levels of serotonin
 Saliva studies

Aversive Events
 Frustration-aggression principle
▪ Fight or flight reaction
▪ Aversive stimuli (physical pain, personal
insults, foul odors, hot temperatures, cigarette
smoke)
 Social and cultural influences
 Ostracism (Rejection-induced aggression)
 Parent-training programs
 Aggression-replacement programs
Observing models of aggression
 Rape myth
 Role of pornography/X-rated film study
▪ View partner as less attractive
▪ Women’s friendliness seem more sexual
▪ Sexual aggression seems less serious
 Acquiring social scripts
 Media influence/Song lyrics
 Do video games teach, or release violence?
 Grand Theft Auto example/Mortal Kombat
 Catharsis hypothesis?
 Effect of virtual reality

BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL UNDERSTANDING
OF AGGRESSION
BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL UNDERSTANDING
OF AGGRESSION
BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL UNDERSTANDING
OF AGGRESSION
BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL UNDERSTANDING
OF AGGRESSION

Proximity
 Mere exposure effect
 “In me I trust”
 Online matchmaking and Speed Dating

Physical attractiveness
 First impressions
 Frequency of dating/Feelings of popularity/Others initial
impressions of their personalities.

Similarity
 Similarity breeds content
 Reward theory of attraction
What factors make a person seem attractive?
1. Proximity (mere exposure effect)
class photo demo
Sally
Wesley
Sam
Maryla


Physical appearance
Many qualities vary by
culture, but a few are
consistent:
 - Youth in women,
maturity in men.
“Baby” features = large head, large forehead, low set eyes,
nose, and mouth, large, round eyes, small nose, round
cheeks, small chin
Source: www.beautycheck.de
Source: www.beautycheck.de
Source: www.beautycheck.de

Love
 Passionate love
▪ Schactor two factor
theory
▪ College men aroused
by fright test
▪ Bridge test
 Companionate love
▪ Better to choose or have
someone choose a partner
for you with similar
background and interests?

Equity
1. Faithfulness
2. Happy sexual
relationship
3. Sharing household
chores

Self-disclosure
 Altruism
 Kitty Genovese
 Bystander
Intervention
 Diffusion of
responsibility
 Bystander
effect
ALTRUISM
ALTRUISM
ALTRUISM
ALTRUISM
ALTRUISM
ALTRUISM
ALTRUISM
ALTRUISM
ALTRUISM
 Social exchange theory
 Reciprocity norm
 Social-responsibility
 Wesley Autrey
norm
 Conflict
 Social trap


Mirror-image perceptions
Self-fulfilling prophecy




Contact (positive correlation)
Cooperation
 Superordinate goals
▪ 9/11
▪ Interracial cooperative learning
Communication
 Win-Win
Conciliation
 GRIT