Download Social Psychology Social Thinking Social Thinking Social Thinking

Social Thinking
Chapter 18
Social Psychology
! Social Thinking, Attribution Theory, Cognitive Dissonance, Cognitive Dissonance
Theory, Leon Festinger, Social Roles
1a. Demonstrate Motivation and Emotion Competencies on short 50Q Obj Unit
Test.
! 1. Describe the importance of attribution in social behavior and the dangers of the
fundamental attribution error.
!
! 2. Identify the conditions under which attitudes have a strong impact on actions.
! 3. Explain the foot-in-the-door phenomenon and the effect of role playing on
attitudes in terms of cognitive dissonance theory.
Social Thinking
Social Thinking
! Social Psychology
! scientific study of how we think about, influence, and relate to
one another
! Attribution Theory (Fritz Heider 1958)
! tendency to give a causal explanation for (attribute) someone’s
behavior, often by crediting either the situation or the person’s
disposition
! Fundamental Attribution Error
! tendency for observers, when analyzing another’s
behavior, to underestimate the impact of the situation
and to overestimate the impact of personal disposition
>>when explaining our own behavior, we attribute to
situation b/c we’re sensitive to how our behavior
changes w/ situations we encounter
>>w/ others we often commit FAE
Why? B/c we’ve learned to focus our attention more on
person than situational context
Situational Attributions v Dispositional Attributions
Social Thinking
Social Thinking
! How we explain someone’s behavior affects how
we react to it
! Our behavior is affected by our inner attitudes
as well as by external social influences
Internal
attitudes
External
influences
Behavior
Social Thinking
Social Thinking
Attitudes & Actions
Attitude
!
! belief and feeling that predisposes one to respond in a
particular way to objects, people and events
>>if we believe someone is mean, we might form dislike for person
and act unfriendly
Do our attitudes guide our actions?
Yes-if
1. Outside influences on what we say and do are minimal (pol)
2. The attitude is specifically relevant to the behavior (good health v specific
Can attitudes follow behavior? (behavior >>attitudes)??
exc pln)
3.
We are keenly aware of our attitudes (rehearse to keep in consc awareness)
Social Thinking
>>people also do believe in what they have stood up for
!
Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon
tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to
comply later with a larger request
(eg. Chinese “thought control on US POW’s during Korean War –
p699)
(eg. Big “Drive Carefully” sign or small sign first—compliance went
from 17% to 76% - p700)
Door-in-the Face Phenomenon
! tendency for people who are faced with a large request agreed
to a small request (which was the goal)
!
Social Thinking
! Attitudes
follow
behavior
! Cooperative
actions feed
mutual liking
Social Thinking
! Why do actions affect our attitudes?
--we feel motivated to justify our actions and to reduce Cognitive
Dissonance
! Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Leon Festinger)
! we act to reduce the discomfort (dissonance) we feel
when two of our thoughts (cognitions) are inconsistent
! example- when we become aware that our attitudes and
our actions clash, we can reduce the resulting dissonance
by changing our attitudes
! Role
! set of expectations about a social position
! defines how those in the position ought to behave
Role >>Attitude?
Behaviors might at first feel phony (soldiers in boot camp)
but before long behavior doesn’t feel forced
>>Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo 1972)
Called off after 6 days
Social Thinking
! Cognitive dissonance
Social Influence
18-2
! Social Influence: Conformity, Obedience, Group Influence-Normative v
Informational Social Inf, Group Behavior, Asch, Milgram, Zimbardo, Social
Facilitation v Social Impairment, Tripplett, Social Loafing, Deindividuation, Group
Polarization, Groupthink, Janis
! 4. Discuss the results of experiments on conformity, and distinguish between
normative and informational social influence.
! 5. Describe Milgram’s controversial experiments on obedience, and discuss their
implications for understanding our susceptibility to social influence.
! 6. Describe conditions in which the presence of others is likely to result in social
facilitation, social loafing, or deindividuation.
! 7. Discuss how group interaction can facilitate group polarization and groupthink,
and describe how minority influence illustrates the power of individuals.
Social Influence
50%
30
Percentage of
conformity to 20
confederates’
wrong answers 10
Conformity
highest
Easy judgments
18-2
! Conformity
! adjusting one’s behavior or thinking to coincide with a group standard
-Adopting attitudes or behaviors of others because of pressure to do so
>>the pressure can be real or imagined
2 general reasons for conformity !
1. informational social influence:
resulting from one’s willingness to accept others’ opinions about reality
other people can provide useful and crucial information (Baron 1996 Study p 705)
2. normative social influence:
desire to be accepted as part of a group leads to that group having an influence
(gain approval/avoid disapproval)
Social Influence
!
!
Difficult judgments
40
Social Influence
! Baron 1996
! Participants judged
which person in
Slide 2 was the
same as the person
in Slide 1
The chameleon effect
Note: mimicry is empathic and empathic indiv are liked the most
Number
of times
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0
Low
High
Importance
0.3
Participant
rubs face
Confederate rubs face
Social Influence
Solomon Asch 1951 Conformity Study
Previous research had shown
z people will conform to others’ judgments more often when the
evidence is ambiguous
z Asch set out to prove that people will not conform when evidence is
clear-cut or unambiguous
y his question - will people still conform when group is clearly
wrong?
Participant
shakes foot
Confederate shakes foot
Social Influence
z
All but 1 in group was confederate
z
Seating was rigged
z
Asked to rate which line matched a “standard” line
z
Confederates were instructed to pick the wrong line 12/18 times
Social Influence
! Which Social Influence is at work?
Social Influence
y Results of Asch Line Exp
y Asch found that 75% participants conformed to at least one
wrong choice
y subjects gave wrong answer (conformed) on 37% of the critical
trials
z Why did they conform to clearly wrong choices?
y subjects reported having doubted their own perceptual abilities
which led to their conforming – didn’t report seeing the lines
the way the confederates had
Social Influence
z Variations to test informational influence hypothesis
y Varied group size (IV)
y had subject come late
y confederates voted out loud, but subjects wrote their vote
down
z Results
y conformity dropped significantly
z Suggests that the original subjects conformed due to normative
influences, not informational
Social Influence
EFFECTS OF NONCONFORMIST IN GROUP
z If everyone agrees, you are less likely to disagree
z If one person disagrees, even if they give the wrong
answer, you are more likely to express your
nonconforming view
z Asch tested this hypothesis
y one confederate gave different answer from others
y conformity dropped significantly
Social Influence
Social Influence
Factors that Strengthen Conformity (Asch)
! Subj made to feel incompetent/ insecure
! Group has at least 3 persons
! Admire group’s status & attractiveness
! No prior commitment to any response
! Others in group observe our behavior
! Our culture encourages respect for social standards
z Obedience
y compliance of
person is due to
perceived authority
of asker
y request is perceived
as a command
z Stanley Milgram 1974
interested in
unquestioning obedience
to orders
Social Influence
Social Influence
z Teacher to another room with experimenter
z Basic study procedure
z Shock generator panel – 15 to 450 volts, labels “slight shock” to “XXX”
y teacher and learner (learner always
confederate)
y watch learner being strapped into
chair -- learner expresses concern
over his “heart condition”
z Asked to give higher shocks for every mistake learner makes
Social Influence
Shock
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Switch Labels
and Voltage Levels
“Slight Shock”
15
30
45
60
“Moderate Shock”
75
90
105
120
“Strong Shock”
135
150
165
180
“Very Strong Shock”
195
210
225
240
Social Influence
Shock
Level
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Switch Labels
and Voltage Levels
“Intense Shock”
255
270
285
300
“Extreme Intensity Shock”
315
330
345
360
“Danger: Severe Shock”
375
390
405
420
“XXX”
435
450
Social Influence
z How many people would go to the highest shock level?
z 65% of the subjects went to the end, even those that protested
z Learner protests more and more as
shock increases
z Experimenter continues to request
obedience even if teacher balks
120 “Ugh! Hey this really hurts.”
150 “Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all.
get me out of here. I told you
I had heart trouble. My heart’s
starting to bother me now.”
300 (agonized scream) “I absolutely
refuse to answer any more.
get me out of here You can’t hold
me here. Get me out.”
330 “(intense & prolonged agonized
scream) “Let me out of here.
Let me out of here. My heart’s
bothering me. Let me out,
I tell you…”
Social Influence
! Milgram’s follow-up obedience experiment
Social Influence
Explanation 4 Milgram’s Results?????
z Abnormal group of subjects?
y numerous replications with variety of groups shows no support
z People in general are sadistic?
y videotapes of Milgram’s subjects show extreme distress
z Authority of Yale and value of science
z Experimenter self-assurance and acceptance of responsibility
z Proximity of learner and subject ( &experimenter)
z New situation and no model of how to behave
Social Influence-F/U Studies to Milgram
z Original study
z
z
z
z
Different building
Teacher with learner
Put hand on shock
Orders by phone
z Ordinary man orders
z 2 teachers rebel
z Teacher chooses
shock level
0
10
20
30
Percentage of subjects administering
the maximum shock (450 volts)
Social Influence
Social Influence
Factors that Strengthen Obedience (Milgram)
! Person giving orders is close at hand and perceived to be a legitimate
authority figure
! Authority figure was supported by a prestigious institution
! Victim was depersonalized/ at a distance (soldiers can kill at a
distance…harder when closer)
! There were no role models for defiance; no other subjects were seen
disobeying
Critics of Milgram
Social Influence
Social Influence
! Some individuals resist social coercion (1 in 3 in Milg stdy)
z 84% later said they were glad to have participated
z < 2% said they were sorry,
z there are still ethical issues
z Do these experiments really help us understand real-world atrocities?
z Do we do better in groups or alone?
z Social facilitation (Tripplett 1898)
y enhancing effect of an audience on task performance
x occurs with well-learned tasks
z Social interference (social inhibition, social impairment, social hindrance)
y decline in performance when observers are present
x occurs with new or difficult tasks
Eg. Pool players 71%!80% w/ 4 people pres
36% !25%
Social Facilitation
Social Influence – Zajonc’s Theory (same
Zajonc as “jump 1st, disc why 2nd” in Emo)
z Linked social interference and
facilitation to arousal level
z High arousal improves simple
or well-learned tasks
z High arousal worsens complex
or poorly-learned task
Presence of others
Increased drive or
arousal
Improved performance
of dominant responses
(social facilitation)
Worsened performance
of nondominant responses
(social Interference)
Social Influence
! Social Loafing (Latane 1981)
! tendency for people in a group to exert less effort when pooling their efforts
toward attaining a common goal than when individually accountable
! >>mainly present in individualistic societies
Social Influence
! Group Polarization
! enhancement of a group’s prevailing attitudes
through discussion within the group
! Groupthink (Janis 1982)
! mode of thinking that occurs when the desire for
harmony in a decision-making group overrides
realistic appraisal of alternatives
Social Influence
! Deindividuation
! loss of self-awareness and self-restraint in
group situations that foster arousal and
anonymity
>>Zimbardo 1970
NYU women dressed in KKK hoods delivered
2x the shock to a victim as did identifiable
women
Social Influence
! If a group is like-minded,
discussion strengthens its
prevailing opinions
Social Influence
Social Influence
Factors that Strengthen Conformity (Asch)
! Subj made to feel incompetent/ insecure
! Group has at least 3 persons
! Admire group’s status & attractiveness
! No prior commitment to any response
! Others in group observe our behavior
! Our culture encourages respect for social standards
Factors that Strengthen Obedience (Milgram)
! Person giving orders is close at hand and perceived to be a legitimate
authority figure
! Authority figure was supported by a prestigious institution
! Victim was depersonalized/ at a distance (soldiers can kill at a
distance…harder when closer)
! There were no role models for defiance; no other subjects were seen
disobeying
Social Relations
Social Relations
18-3
! Americans today express much less racial and gender prejudice
! Social Relations: Prejudice, Stereotypes, Ingroup v. Outgroup,
Ingroup Bias, Scapegoat Theory of Prejudices, Cognitive Roots of
Prejudice- Categorization, Vivid Cases, Just-World Phenomenon,
Aggression- Biological Roots, Frustration-Aggression Principle,
Media and Society Influences
8. Describe the social, emotional, and cognitive factors that contribute to
the persistence of cultural, ethnic, and gender prejudice and
discrimination.
9. Describe the impact of biological factors, aversive events, and
learning experiences on aggressive behavior.
10. Discuss the effects of pornography and violent video games on
social attitudes and behavior.
! >>but is there still unconscious racism running rampant? (Harber
98)p744
Social Relations
Social Relations
! Does perception change with race?
z Prejudice vs. Discrimination
y Prejudice- Unjustifiable negative attitudes or
beliefs
y Discrimination- Unjustifiable negative
behaviors
47
Social Relations
Social Relations
! Ingroup
! “Us”- people with whom one shares a common
identity
! Outgroup
! “Them”- those perceived as different or apart from
one’s ingroup
! Ingroup Bias
! tendency to favor one’s own group
! Chimps show an ingroup bias – wiping face when touched by
an outgroup chimp
! Scapegoat Theory
! theory that prejudice provides an outlet for anger by providing
someone to blame
! Just-World Phenomenon
! tendency of people to believe the world is just
! people get what they deserve and deserve what they get
Social Relations
Social Relations
! Vivid cases (9/11 terrorists) feed stereotypes
Social Relations
! Aggression
! any physical or verbal behavior intended to
hurt or destroy
! Frustration-Aggression Principle
! principle that frustration – the blocking of an
attempt to achieve some goal – creates
anger, which can generate aggression
Social Relations
! Men who sexually
coerce women
The Bechdel Test
Social Relations 18-4
z Allison Bechdel-Dykes To Watch Out For
z Rule to Identify Gender Bias
y Two Named Women
18-4
756-764
! Social Relations: Conflict, Social Traps/ Prisoner’s Dilemma, Attraction,
Companionate v Passionate Love
! 11. Explain how social traps and mirror-image perceptions fuel social conflict.
! 12. Describe the influence of proximity, physical attractiveness, and similarity
on interpersonal attraction.
! 13. Explain the impact of physical arousal on passionate love, and discuss
how companionate love is nurtured by equity and self-disclosure.
y Talk to Each Other
y Talk about something other than men (or
relationships)
55
Social Relations
18-4
Social Relations
18-4
If you could do anything humanly possible w/ complete assurance that you
would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?
Please copy the following questions and answer them in your
notebook
>>> Deindividuation-abandoning normal restraints to the power of the group; to
be less self-conscious and less restrained when in a group situation; occurs
when group participation makes people feel aroused and anonymous
Why do we become friends with some people but not with others?
Does our love for a partner remain the same as time passes?
Common responses
26% Criminal Act
15% Robbing a Bank
11% Sexual Acts
11% Spying Behavior
Social Relations
Social Relations
Person 1
z Conflict
z Social Trap
y a situation in which the conflicting parties, by
each rationally pursuing their self-interest,
become caught in mutually destructive
behavior
Person 2
Choose B
Choose A
y perceived incompatibility of actions, goals, or
ideas
Choose A
Choose B
Optimal
outcome
Probable
outcome
z Social trap
y by pursuing
our selfinterest and
not trusting
others, we can
end up losers
Social RelationsAttractiveness
Social RelationsAttractiveness
z Proximity
! Mere Exposure Effect
! repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of them
! “Familiarity breeds fondness”
y mere exposure effect- repeated exposure to
novel stimuli increases liking of them
! Conceptions of attractiveness vary by culture
z Physical Attractiveness
y youthfulness may be associated with health
and fertility
z Similarity
y friends share common attitudes, beliefs,
interests
Social Relations
Social Relations
z Passionate Love
z Equity
y an aroused state of intense positive
absorption in another
y usually present at the beginning of a
love relationship
z Companionate Love
y deep affectionate attachment we feel
for those with whom our lives are
intertwined “mutual self-disclosure”
Social Relations
Cog Comp
!
1. Preocc w/ partner (5,19,21)
!
2. Idelaization of the other or the relnshp (7,9,15)
!
3. Desire to know the other and be known (10,22)
Emo Comp
y a condition in which people receive from a
relationship in proportion to what they give to
it
z Self-disclosure
y revealing intimate aspects of oneself to others
z Altruism
y unselfish regard for the welfare of others
Social Relations
18-5
Social Relations: Altruism, Bystander Intervention, Darley and Latane, Kitty Genovese
Case, Bystander Effect, Social Exchange Theory, Peacemaking-Superordinate Goals,
GRIT
p. 764-770
!
1. Attraction to other, esp sexual (16,18,29)
14. Describe and explain the bystander effect, and explain altruistic behavior in terms of social
exchange theory and social norms.
!
2. Neg feelings when things go awry (2,8,20,28,30)
15. Discuss effective ways of encouraging peaceful cooperation and reducing social conflict.
!
3. Longing for reciprocity (14)
!
4. Desire for comp union (11,12,23,27)
!
5. Physio Arousal (3,13,17,26)
Beh Comp
!
1. Actions toward det the other’s feelings (24)
!
2. Studying the other person (4)
!
3. Service to the other (6,25)
Social Relations
z Bystander Effect
y tendency for any given bystander to be less likely
to give aid if other bystanders are present
Social Relations
! The decision-making process for bystander intervention
Social Relations
! Bystander Effect
! tendency for any
given bystander to
be less likely to give
aid if other
bystanders are
present
<<Kitty Genovese>>
Diffusion of
Responsibility
Social Relations
! Social Exchange Theory
! the theory that our social behavior is an exchange process, the aim of
which is to maximize benefits and minimize costs
>>presumes that self-interest underlies all human interaction
! Well, why do we help when there is no benefit?
! Social expectations (norms) influence helping
! Reciprocity norm, social responsibility norm, etc
! Superordinate Goals
! shared goals that override differences among people and require their
cooperation (reduce prejudice) (Remember the Titans)
Social Relations
! Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tensionreduction (GRIT)
! a strategy designed to decrease international tensions
! one side announces recognition of mutual interests
and initiates a small conciliatory act
! opens door for reciprocation by other party
! “conciliatory gestures” open the communication