Download Unit 14: Social Psychology

UNIT 14
Self-Serving
Bias
Fundamental
Attribution
Error
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Stereotypes Primacy
Effect
Social
Cognition
Cognitive
Dissonance
Schema
We are
here
Attribution
(explain
others
behavior)
Just-World
Hypothesis
Unit 12:
Attitude:
Formation
and change
(Persuasion)
Foot in the
Door
Routes to
Persuasion
Individualistic vs.
Collectivistic Culture
Social
Behavior
deindividuation,
the self-fulfilling prophecy,
bystander effect
social facilitation
Conformity
Impact of
Others on
the Person
Attraction
In-Group/OutGroup
Treatment of
group members
Compliance
Impact of
Others on
the Group
Group
Polarization
Group
Think

The scientific study of the ways in which the
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of one
individual are influenced by the real,
imagined, or inferred behavior or
characteristics of other people

Major Topics:
 How you think about people
 How you explain their behavior
Self-Serving
Bias
Fundamental
Attribution
Error
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Stereotypes Primacy
Effect
Social
Cognition
Cognitive
Dissonance
Schema
We are
here
Attribution
(explain
others
behavior)
Just-World
Hypothesis
Unit 12:
Attitude:
Formation
and change
(Persuasion)
Foot in the
Door
Routes to
Persuasion
Individualistic vs.
Collectivistic Culture
Social
Behavior
deindividuation,
the self-fulfilling prophecy,
bystander effect
social facilitation
Conformity
Impact of
Others on
the Person
Attraction
In-Group/OutGroup
Treatment of
group members
Compliance
Impact of
Others on
the Group
Group
Polarization
Group
Think


Attribution Theory: tries to explain how
people make judgments about the causes
of other people’s behavior
Three criteria used to judge behavior
 Distinctiveness: Is this how the person treats
everyone or are you different?
 Consistency: Has the person always treated you
this way or is this different?
 Consensus: Do other people do this same thing
or is this really different?

Bob walks past you without saying hi.
 Distinctiveness: Your explanation as to why Bob
did this will be different if he does this to
everyone in the hall or just you
 Consistency: Your explanation as to why Bob did
this will be different if he always says hi to you
or if you don’t really know each other.
 Consensus: Whether you’re in New York City vs.
a college of 600 will change how you explain
Bob’s behavior.

Fundamental attribution error: when explaining the
behavior of others this is the tendency to
overemphasize personal causes underemphasize
situational causes

Actor-Observer Bias: This is the opposite used by us
when we explain our own behavior. We
overemphasize situational causes and downplay
personality.

Defensive attribution
 Self-Serving Bias: Tendency to attribute our successes to
our own efforts and our failures to external factors
 Just-world hypothesis: Assumption bad things happen to
bad people and good things happen to good people

Attribution across cultures varies dramatically
Dispositional attribution = behavior is
linked to the individual
• Situational attribution =behavior is
linked to a situation
•
How we explain someone’s behavior affects how
we react to it.




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
Self-Serving
Bias
Fundamental
Attribution
Error
Unit 12:
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Cognitive
Dissonance
Schema
We are
here
Attribution
(explain
others
behavior)
Just-World
Hypothesis
Stereotypes Primacy
Effect
Social
Cognition
Attitude:
Formation
and change
(Persuasion)
Foot in the
Door
Routes to
Persuasion
Individualistic vs.
Collectivistic Culture
Social
Behavior
deindividuation,
the self-fulfilling prophecy,
bystander effect
social facilitation
Conformity
Impact of
Others on
the Person
Attraction
In-Group/OutGroup
Treatment of
group members
Compliance
Impact of
Others on
the Group
Group
Polarization
Group
Think
 The
Nature of Attitudes
 Relatively stable
▪ Beliefs – facts and general knowledge
▪ Feelings – love, hate, like, dislike
▪ Behaviors – inclination to approach,
avoid, buy

Central Route to Persuasion
 when the attitude of the audience, or individual, is
changed as a result of thoughtful consideration of the
message.

Peripheral Route to Persuasion
 occurs when positive or negative cues (such as images,
sounds, or language) are associated with the object of the
message.
 An advertisement featuring a song that the audience
member likes, or a person whom the audience member
sees as appealing might cause a person to have positive
feelings toward the brand, without that person ever
thinking deeply about the message.
Our attitudes predict our behaviors imperfectly
because other factors, including the external
situation, also influence behavior.
Democratic leaders supported Bush’s attack on Iraq
under public pressure. However, they had their
private reservations.
 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
Occurs whenever a person has two contradictory
cognitions or beliefs at the same time. They are
dissonant, each one implies the opposite of the
other.
 The less coerced and more responsible we feel for
an action the more dissonance. The more
dissonance the more likely we are to change our
attitude
 It creates an unpleasant cognitive tension and the
person tries to resolve in the following ways:


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.
Sometimes changing your attitude is the
easiest way to solve this.
1.

Example: I am a loyal friend, but yesterday I gossiped about my friend
Chris…Well, I can’t change my action…but I don’t want to change my
view of myself, so my attitude about Chris must be wrong. He really is
more of an acquaintance than a friend.
Increase the number of thoughts that back
one side
2.

It was awesome gossip
Reduce the importance of one or both of the
sides
3.

The person I gossiped with won’t really tell that many people.

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)

Power of role
conformity!
Self-Serving
Bias
Fundamental
Attribution
Error
Unit 12:
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Attribution
(explain
others
behavior)
Just-World
Hypothesis
Stereotypes Primacy
Effect
Social
Cognition
Cognitive
Dissonance
Schema
Attitude:
Formation
and change
(Persuasion)
Foot in the
Door
Routes to
Persuasion
Individualistic vs.
Collectivistic Culture
Social
Behavior
deindividuation,
the self-fulfilling prophecy,
bystander effect
social facilitation We are
here
Conformity
Impact of
Others on
the Person
Attraction
In-Group/OutGroup
Treatment of
group members
Compliance
Impact of
Others on
the Group
Group
Polarization
Group
Think
 Chameleon
 empathy
effect
Fundamental
Attribution
Error
Self-Serving
Bias
Unit 12:
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Attribution
(explain
others
behavior)
Just-World
Hypothesis
Stereotypes Primacy
Effect
Social
Cognition
Cognitive
Dissonance
Schema
Attitude:
Formation
and change
(Persuasion)
Foot in the
Door
Routes to
Persuasion
Individualistic vs.
Collectivistic Culture
Social
Behavior
deindividuation,
the self-fulfilling prophecy,
bystander effect
social facilitation
We are
here
Conformity
Impact of
Others on
the Person
Attraction
In-Group/OutGroup
Treatment of
group members
Compliance
Impact of
Others on
the Group
Group
Polarization
Group
Think
Conformity: A change in one’s behavior due
to the real or imagined influence of
other people.

Unlike obedience, conformity does not
require commands or coercion by an
authority.
 Solomon
Asch study
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA
Conformity and Social Approval: The Asch
Line Judgment Studies
Asch tested whether people would conform in
situations in which the group’s judgments were
obviously incorrect.
Participants in the Asch line study showed a high
level of conformity, given how obvious it was that
the group was wrong in its judgments.
CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE
SOLOMON ASCH STUDY

What was the role of…
 Public versus private conformity?
 Unanimity of the group?
 Normative influence? (don’t want to look silly)



Private conformity: change of beliefs that
occurs when a person privately accepts the
position taken by others.
Public conformity: superficial change in
overt behavior, without a corresponding
change of opinion, produced by real or
imagined group pressure.
Asch studies demonstrate PUBLIC
conformity


Normative influence: Conformity occurs
when a person fears the negative
consequences of appearing deviant.
If they write answers privately, conformity
drops markedly.


When the group’s position is unanimous,
conformity is greater.
If one person dissents (an ally), conformity
drops.
When Will People Conform to Normative
Social Influence?
Asch’s research show that conformity does not
increase much after group size reaches 4 or 5
other people.
 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




Adolescents
Women are slightly more likely than men,
but the difference is very small and
depends on the specific type of situation.
Cultures valuing interpersonal harmony
(e.g., some cultures in Asia, Africa, and
South America)
People with low self-esteem are more likely
to conform than those with high selfesteem.
Self-Serving
Bias
Fundamental
Attribution
Error
Unit 12:
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Attribution
(explain
others
behavior)
Just-World
Hypothesis
Stereotypes Primacy
Effect
Social
Cognition
Cognitive
Dissonance
Schema
Attitude:
Formation
and change
(Persuasion)
Foot in the
Door
Routes to
Persuasion
Individualistic vs.
Collectivistic Culture
Social
Behavior
deindividuation,
the self-fulfilling prophecy,
bystander effect
social facilitation
Conformity
Impact of We are
Others on here
the Person
Attraction
In-Group/OutGroup
Treatment of
group members
Compliance
Impact of
Others on
the Group
Group
Polarization
Group
Think
 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
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
Self-Serving
Bias
Fundamental
Attribution
Error
Unit 12:
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Attribution
(explain
others
behavior)
Just-World
Hypothesis
Stereotypes Primacy
Effect
Social
Cognition
Cognitive
Dissonance
Schema
Attitude:
Formation
and change
(Persuasion)
Foot in the
Door
Routes to
Persuasion
Individualistic vs.
are
CollectivisticWe
Culture
here
deindividuation,
the self-fulfilling prophecy,
bystander effect
social facilitation
Conformity
Impact of
Others on
the Person
Social
Behavior
Attraction
In-Group/OutGroup
Treatment of
group members
Compliance
Impact of
Others on
the Group
Group
Polarization
Group
Think
Social facilitation: Refers to
improved performance on
tasks in the presence of
others.
Triplett (1898) noticed
cyclists’ race times were
faster when they competed
against others than when
they just raced against the
clock.
 Social
Facilitation
 Task difficulty
▪ Home vs. Away
 Crowding effects
▪ Comedians and Actors
▪ Practical lesson
Social Loafing: The tendency of an
individual in a group to exert less effort
toward attaining a common goal than
when tested individually.

Social Loafing - Reasons why?
▪ Less accountability
▪ Tug of war
▪ Clapping/Shouting experiments
▪ View themselves as dispensable
▪ Group projects in school
▪ Free-rider effect
▪ Diffusion of responsibility
▪ Sucker effect
Deindividuation: The loss of self-awareness and
self-restraint in group situations that foster
arousal and anonymity.
Mob behavior
Self-Serving
Bias
Fundamental
Attribution
Error
Unit 12:
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Attribution
(explain
others
behavior)
Just-World
Hypothesis
Stereotypes Primacy
Effect
Social
Cognition
Cognitive
Dissonance
Schema
Attitude:
Formation
and change
(Persuasion)
Foot in the
Door
Routes to
Persuasion
Individualistic vs.
Collectivistic Culture
Social
Behavior
deindividuation,
the self-fulfilling prophecy,
bystander effect
social facilitation
Conformity
Impact of
Others on
the Person
Attraction
In-Group/OutGroup
We are
Treatment of
group members
Compliance
Impact of
Others on
the Group
Group
Polarization
here
Group
Think
Group Polarization: tendency to shift toward
more extreme positions after group discussion
Risky
Neutral
Cautious

Group
Polarization
 Internet
 terrorist
organizations
▪ “us vs. them”
Groupthink: a mode of thinking that occurs when
the desire for harmony in a decision-making
group overrides the realistic appraisal of
alternatives.





Watergate cover-up
Bay of Pigs
Iraq WMD
Marshall Plan
Cuban Missile Crisis

Groupthink- syndrome of bad decision-making

Culture: behaviors, ideas, values and
traditions shared by a group of people and
are transmitted from one generation to the
next
 Norm:
understood rule for
accepted and expected behavior
 Personal space
 Pace of life
 Changes
over the generations
The power of social
influence is enormous,
but so is the power of
the individual.
Non-violent fasts and
appeals by Gandhi led
to the independence of
India from the British.
Gandhi

Social control (Power of the situation) vs
personal control (Power of the individual)






Abu Ghraib
Communism
Christianity
Rosa Parks
Inventions
Minority influence – only
takes one voice to break
conformity
Self-Serving
Bias
Fundamental
Attribution
Error
Unit 12:
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Attribution
(explain
others
behavior)
Just-World
Hypothesis
Stereotypes Primacy
Effect
Social
Cognition
Cognitive
Dissonance
Schema
Attitude:
Formation
and change
(Persuasion)
Foot in the
Door
We are
Routes to
here
Persuasion
Individualistic vs.
Collectivistic Culture
Social
Behavior
deindividuation,
the self-fulfilling prophecy,
bystander effect
social facilitation
Conformity
Impact of
Others on
the Person
Attraction
In-Group/OutGroup
Treatment of
group members
Compliance
Impact of
Others on
the Group
Group
Polarization
Group
Think

A set of characteristics believed to be shared by
all members of a social category
 It is usually unfair
 Most often applied to sex, race, occupation,
physical appearance, place of residence,
membership in a group or organization
 Can become the basis for self-fulfilling
prophecies
Simply called “prejudgment,” a prejudice is an
unjustifiable (usually negative) attitude toward a
group and its members. Prejudice is often directed
towards different cultural, ethnic, or gender groups.
Components of Prejudice
1. Beliefs (stereotypes)
2. Emotions (hostility, envy, fear)
3. Predisposition to act
(discrimination)
Prejudice works at the conscious and [more at] the
unconscious level. Therefore, prejudice is more like a
knee-jerk response than a conscious decision.
Over the duration of time many prejudices against
interracial marriage, gender, homosexuality, and minorities
have decreased.
Americans today express much less racial and
gender prejudice, but prejudices still exist.

http://implicit.harvard.edu
Nine out of ten white respondents were slow
when responding to words like “peace” or
“paradise” when they saw a black individual’s
photo compared to a white individual’s photo
(Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003).
Prejudice develops when people have money, power,
and prestige, and others do not. Social inequality
increases prejudice.
Ingroup: People with whom one shares a common
identity. Outgroup: Those perceived as different
from one’s ingroup. Ingroup Bias: The tendency to
favor one’s own group.
Prejudice provides an outlet for anger [emotion] by
providing someone to blame. After 9/11 many people
lashed out against innocent Muslim Americans.
One way we simplify our world is to categorize. We
categorize people into groups by stereotyping them.
In vivid cases such as the 9/11 attacks, terrorists
can feed stereotypes or prejudices (terrorism).
Most terrorists are non-Muslims.
Categorization
 Outgroup homogeneity
 Other-race effect/Own race-bias
▪ Apparent as early as 3-9 months of age
 Vivid cases (9/11)
 Just-world phenomenon
 Hindsight bias



Aggression
is any physical or verbal
behavior intended to hurt
or destroy
 done reactively out of hostility
or proactively as a calculated
means to an end



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

Sheldon algorithm making friends
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 - Eagles vs. Rattlers
▪ 9/11
▪ Interracial cooperative learning
Communication
 Win-Win
Conciliation
 GRIT