Download Chapter 13

Experimental Psychology
PSY 433
Chapter 13
Social Psychology
Social Psychology
 Social Cognition -- how we perceive others:


Stereotypes, prejudice, attraction, liking.
Attitudes and beliefs, identity, sense of self,
and how these are changed.
 Social Influence -- how others influence our
behavior:

Conformity, compliance, and obedience.
 Aggression, violence, altruism,
cooperation.
Conformity
Conformity
 Sherif’s (1935) work on social norms using
the autokinetic effect.
 Autokinetic effect – a stationary spot of light
in a dark room appears to move.
 What others say affects an observer’s
perceptions –it appears to move in an arc if
other people saw it move in an arc.
Conformity
 Asch’s (1951, 1956, 1958) work on
conformity using line judgments.
 Subjects were told the study was on visual
discrimination, but it was actually on
conformity.
 The task – identify which of 3 lines matches a
standard.
 Asch expected that people would follow the
evidence of their own eyes – but they didn’t.
Standard
A
B C
Asch’s Paradigm
 Six confederates & 1 subject
 Each responded out loud
 Experimental manipulation:

Confederates respond correctly on 6 trials &
incorrectly on 12
 Most subjects conformed on 1 or more of the
12 incorrect trials
 Control: Confederates always responded
correctly (only 5% of subjects erred).
Compliance and Obedience
 Milgram (1963, 1964, 1965) obedience task
 Paid subjects volunteered for a study of the
effects of punishment on learning/memory.
 Involved 3 people:



Authority – the experimenter
Victim – the “learner” (a confederate)
Subject -- the “teacher”
Milgram’s Shock Panel
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
Slight
Shock
Moderate
Shock
Strong
Shock
Very Strong
Shock
315 330 345 360 375 390 405 420 435 450
ExtremeIntensity
Shock
Danger:
Severe
Shock
XXX
Intense
Shock
Learner Responses
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
Slight
Shock
Moderate
Shock
Grunts
&
Moans
Strong
Shock
“Let me
out!”
Very Strong
Shock
“I can’t
stand the
pain!”
Intense
Shock
“I refuse
to
answer!”
Conditions Affecting Obedience
 The setting – did Yale foster obedience
because it was well-known, Ivy League?


Replication in a sleazy part of Bridgeport
48% gave max shock, compared to 65%
 Presence/absence of peers also showing
defiance or conformity:

Conforming peers encouraged greater shock.
 Proximity to the “victim”: 74% when hear
victim, 40% when see victim, 30% when
touch victim
Interpreting Conformity Results
 Perhaps subjects trusted that no harm would
really come to the subjects – treated the
context as “make believe”.
 Perhaps results underestimate conformity,
since the experimenter truly has no authority
over the subject.
 Obedience is not necessarily bad – society
would not function if people ignored laws and
persons in authority.
Dependent Variables
 Questionnaires measuring belief, attitude,
preference (liking).

Rating scales
 Behavioral measures:


Aggression measured by shock given.
Attraction measured by how long a man talks
to a woman, smiles at her, whether he asks
her out.
 Converging measures are better.
Independent Variables
 Characteristics of a social situation or of
people (demographic variables).
 Factors believed to affect behavior are
manipulated:



Persuasiveness – manipulate number or type
of arguments used.
Aggression – manipulate temperature in a
room to test whether heat affects behavior.
Conformity – manipulate number of people
who agree or disagree.
Experimenter Bias
 Subtle influences that experimenters may
unknowingly exert on their outcomes.


Tone of voice and emphasis may change
across conditions.
Expectancies may affect subject behavior.
 Blind and Double-blind procedures are not
always possible.
 Replication guards against both experimenter
bias and outright fraud.
Demand Characteristics
 Are subjects acting normally in an
experiment, or are they just doing what
they think they are expected to do?

Did Milgram’s subjects give shock because
the experimental context demanded it?
 Placebo effect occurs when subjects are
told they are taking medication and show
effects because of their expectation.
 All experiments communicate an
expectation explicitly and implicitly.
Orne’s Experiments
 Orne sought an experiment so meaningless
than subjects would refuse to do it:


2000 sheets with random digits that subjects
were to add up – impossible yet no one
refused.
Told to tear up the sheets, subjects persisted
for hours, saying there must be a good reason
 Orne and Evans (1965) examined demand
characteristics in a hypnosis study.

Is behavior due to hypnosis or demand
characteristics?
Hypnosis Demos
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmgptd8bXfA
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn171z-CPLs
Orne’s Results
Hypnosis is not necessarily responsible for the behavior.
Demand characteristics are sufficient to explain the behavior.
Implicit Measures
 People may be unaware of their own
prejudices or misreport them to be consistent
with social norms against racism.
 Implicit attitude measures allow observation
of correlates of prejudice without explicitly
asking subjects about it.
 The IAT (Implicit Association Test) is one
such measure – used in lab this week.
Payne’s Priming Study
 On each trial a black or a white face was
flashed so quickly subjects were unaware of
seeing it (200 ms).
 Next either a weapon or a tool was
presented.
 Subjects had to quickly identify whether it was
a tool or a weapon.
 Tools were misidentified as guns more often
after seeing the black face, suggesting a
reliance on racial stereotypes.
The Bystander Studies
 Several incidents pre-1970 got researchers
interested in another area of social influence:

The mere presence of other people
 The bystander effect -- the more people who
observe a crisis, the less likely any one of
them is to help the victim.
 Is this true in every situation?
Outside of a Small Circle of
Friends
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4bSqSdto5g
Kitty Genovese (1964)
Darley and Latane (1968)
 Over an intercom, subjects discussed
problems in college life with 1, 2, or 5
others.
 IV: Number of bystanders (0, 1, or 4)
 DV: whether subject responded &
elapsed sec
 The more bystanders, the less likely
subjects were to respond and the longer it
took when they did respond
 Note: typo in Kantowitz Table 13-2.
Darley & Latane’s Results
Diffusion of Responsibility
 Piliavin et al. (1969) manipulated:
 Race of the victim simulating a crisis.
 Whether victim appeared ill or drunk.
 They recorded race of helper, number of
helpers, racial composition of bystanders.
 Results:



Help offered more readily to ill (95%) than
drunk (50%).
Race only mattered for drunk victims.
Number of bystanders didn’t matter.
Where Did the Effect Go?
 Piliavin et al.’s study was done in the field not
in the lab. Maybe other factors were present.
 If people are made to feel responsible for a
situation they are more likely to help,
regardless of bystanders.

Milgram’s subjects were told that the
experimenter was responsible.
 People may be reluctant to intervene due to
potential embarrassment, loss of poise.
Stereotypes and Prejudice
 People may be unaware of their prejudices or
misreport them in order to be consistent with
social norms.
 Implicit memory tests and attitude measures
permit observation of hypothesized correlates
of prejudice without self-report.
 Implicit attitudes may influence behavior in
real life, outside experimental contexts too.