Download No Slide Title

Module 43
Social Psychology:
Social Thinking
• How do we explain other peoples’ behavior?
• How do we form our beliefs and attitudes”
• What is the relationship between what we think
and how we behave?
Module 43, 44 and 45
1
Social Thinking – how we form impressions of
other people
Attributions Judgments about Why others act
like they do?
Module 43 & 44a
2
Is it them (dispositional) or the situation
(situational)?
• Consensus - did others act like this?
• Consistency- does he/she do this all the time?
• Distinctiveness - in all situations?
Module 43 & 44a
3
Heuristics (short cuts)
Fundamental Attribution Error.
Other people - due to dispositional factors.
• more common in western than East Asian
cultures.
• Less with people we know well.
• More when the behavior is bad.
Module 43 & 44a
4
Self-serving Bias
When judging our own actions. . . .
Own Successes have internal causes.
Own failures have external causes.
Module 43 & 44a
5
Changing the
perspective of video
presentation can
change peoples
attributions. Situational
Attributions were more likely when seen
from the actor’s perspective.
Module 43 & 44a
6
Looking back on our past selves, we are
more likely to attribute past behaviors to
dispositional factors (traits).
Political perspective also effect attributions!
Conservative vs. Liberal Point of View.
Module 43 & 44a
7
Blaming the Victim
When bad things happen to other people we tend
to see it as their own fault.
Just World Hypothesis
The world is a just (fair) place.
If something bad happens to someone, they
must deserve it.
- I’m a good person, so it can’t happen to me.
Module 43 & 44a
8
Attitudes and Actions
Attitudes – feelings and beliefs that
predispose our reactions (behaviors)
Attitudes
Behaviors
Module 43 & 44a
9
Changing Attitudes Can Change
Behaviors
Peripheral Route Persuasion - gut level
- appeal to feelings rather than reason.
Central Route Persuasion – logic driven
Appeals to reason and evidence
Module 43 & 44a
10
Changing Behaviors Can Change Attitudes
Cognitive Dissonance - people feel uncomfortable
when their behavior and attitudes are not consistent
- change behavior and attitudes may follow.
- people change their attitudes when they can’t
find a reason to justify their behavior.
- I did this, so I must feel that way.
c14(1)
11
Cognitive Dissonance
Lowball Sales Techniques
c14(1)
12
Changing Behaviors Can Change
Attitudes
Foot-in-the-door Phenomenon - you ask
for a small request first, and people are
more likely to agree to a bigger one
afterwards.
Module 43 & 44a
13
Role Playing Can Change Attitudes
Zimbardo Prison Experiment.
- Normal, healthy college students
- randomly assigned to be guards or prisoners
in a role playing exercise.
Soon became them against us.
Module 43 & 44a
14
Module 44
Social Influence
• Conformity
• Obedience
• Group Behaviors
Module 43 & 44a
15
Conformity: Behavior is Contagious
Elevator
Chameleon effect – allows us to blend in with
others.
How to start a movement!
Module 43 & 44a
16
Asch Study
- Line Judgment Task
Module 43 & 44a
17
Results:
Overall, subjects conformed to wrong answer on 37% of
target trials
75% of subjects conformed on at least one trial
50% of subjects conformed on more than half of the trials
Factors that increase conformity
status of others
number of others
unanimous agreement
responses made public
Module 43 & 44a
18
Obedience: Responding to Direct Orders
Milgram Study
Original study: 63% shocked innocent
“learner” to maximum level!
Video
Module 43 & 44a
19
Factors that Increase Obedience
• status of the experimenter
• distance between teacher and learner
• responsibility
• sequential nature of the task
• no role models for defiance
Module 43 & 44a
20
“The ordinary person who shocked the
victim did so out of a sense of obligation -an impression of his duties as a subject -- and
not from any peculiarly aggressive
tendencies.” (Milgram, 1974)
Module 43 & 44a
21
Group Behavior
Social Facilitation
• Crowding Effect
Social Loafing
• Tug-of-war studies.
Deindividuation
• Why are internet trolls so mean?
• Group Polarization
• Myers and Bishop study on group polarization
and prejudice.
Groupthink
• Overconfidence, conformity, selfjustification and group polarization.
• When are two heads better than one? –
when there are a diversity of opinions and
open communication.
The power of the Individual
Module 45 – Antisocial Relations (will
not be on the Exam).
Module 46 Prosocial
Relationships
Attraction
Proximity
• Mere exposure effect
• Bailenson study on preference for political
candidates and facial feature similarity
Physical Attractiveness
Speed dating studies
Uof Minnesota Welcome Week dance study
Gaze time studies of Babies and physical
attractiveness.
Diener’s studies on attractiveness, self-esteem
and happiness.
What type of features do people find attractive?
Similarity
Altruism: Unselfish regard for
the welfare of others.
Kitty Genovese (1964)
38 witnesses and none helped
or called the police.
Bystander Effect
Diffusion of Responsibility
Does number of people matter?
Subways Studies
Alone - 80% helped
Others - 30% helped
- took longer to respond
c14(1)
28
Factors that effect Helping
Person appears to need and deserve help.
Similarity to self
Being female
Having just observed someone else being helpful
Not in a hurry
Less in large cities
Feeling guilty
Focused on others (not self absorbed)
Good Mood
Norms for Helping
Social Exchange Theory – cost-benefit analysis
- if rewards exceed costs you will help.
Reciprocity Norm – expectation that we should
help not harm others who have helped us.
When other is on equal status - equate giving and
receiving.
Social-responsibility Norm
We should help those in need, even if the costs
outweigh the benefits.
Wesley Autrey was waiting
on a subway station in NY
with his 2 daughters. He saw a
man fall onto the tracks after
having a seizure. Autrey jumped
down onto the tracks to try to get Hallopeter back up
before the oncoming train arrived.
He realized it would be too late and, instead of
jumping to safety, he lay Hallopeter down
between the tracks, placing himself on top as
protection from the train. The train came to a
stop over the top of them after five carriages had
passed over. Neither were harmed by the train –
Autrey’s hat simply had some grease on it.
In an interview with the New York Time, Autrey
said, “I don’t feel like I did something
spectacular; I just saw someone who needed
help. I did what I felt was right.”
Characteristics of Helpers
• - higher in belief in “just World”
• - Internal locus of control
• - sense of social responsibility
Other Factors
• Do you know what to do?
• Being told what to do?
Peacemaking
Conflict – a perceived incompatibility of
actions, goals or ideals.
Social trap – situation in which conflicting parties each
pursue rational self-interest and engage in mutually
destructive behaviors.
c14(1)
34
Social Trap Game
(Prisoner’s Dilemma or
Non-Zero-Sum Game)
 Illustrates the benefits and
costs of cooperation
 Each player receives
benefits whose size depends
on whether they cooperate
 If both parties rationally
pursue self-interest, they
could win nothing
 If one party cooperates, and
the other doesn’t, the one
who doesn’t reaps a large
benefit
• Test of whether people can form a link of social
cooperation even when cheating has a chance of
reaping a greater benefit.
• If both players choose “A,” (mutual cooperation) they
both make $5.
• If both players choose “B,” (noncooperation) neither
party makes anything.
• If the other player chooses “A” (cooperation) while you
choose “B” (noncooperation) you could make $10.
• If both players pursue their own interests and choose
“B” (noncooperation), neither will make anything.
• Therefore, the best option is for both parties to choose
“A” or cooperate; each party will win $5.
Factors the Increase Cooperation
• Regulations
• Better communication
• Awareness of responsibilities toward
community
Mirror-Image Perceptions – tendency for
competing groups to demonize one another.
Self-fulfilling prophecies
Tit-for-tat Experiments
Shergill (2003), used a
motor to apply a fixed force
to the finger of the first
participant, who was then
told to apply the same force
to the other person's finger.
Over eight turns, the force
applied increased a massive
14-fold. Participants always
responded with a force at
least one-third greater than
the force applied to them.
Promoting Peace
Contact
Noncompetitive
Equal Status
Voluntary
Communication
Conciliation
GRIT
Cooperation: Muzafer Sherif
and the Robber’s Cave
Experiment
 Created two groups of 11-year-old boys
 Separated the groups and had them
compete
 Rivalries and hostility developed
between the groups
 Sherif then gave both groups a shared
(superordinate) goal.
 By the end of the experiment, conflict
and hostility were reduced