Download Social Psychology - IB-Psychology

Social Cognition
What is Social
Psychology?
What is Social Psychology?
• Social Psychology: study of
how people think, feel, and
behave in social situations.
• Social cognition: mental
processes people use to make
sense out of their social
environment
• Social influence: effect of
situation and other people on
an individual’s behavior
Activities:
1. Pictures matching
2. What else do you know about
…?
3. “hot or not”
Person Perception
Forming
Impressions of
Other People
Person Perception
• Person Perception:
mental processes we use to
form judgments and draw
conclusions about the
characteristics and motives
of others
Principles of Person Perception
1. Your reactions are determined by
your perceptions of others
2. Your goals determine the amount
and kind of information you collect
3. You evaluate people partly in terms
of how you expect them to behave
(social norms)
4. Your self-perception influences how
you perceive others
Social Categorization
• Mental process of categorizing people
into groups on the basis of their
shared characteristics
• Automatic and spontaneous, outside
conscious awareness
• Cognitively efficient but may lead to
inaccurate conclusions
–Example: Asian male, early 20’s,
probably a college student
Social Categorization
Advantages:
• Help organize
and recall
efficiently
Disadvantages:
• Ignores
uniqueness
• Fast conclusions
can be wrong
When important, we rely less on categorization!
Implicit Personality Theories
• Network of assumptions or beliefs
about the relationships among
various types of people, traits,
and behaviors
• Through previous social
experience, we form schemas
about the traits and behaviors
associated with different “types”
of people
Implicit Personality Theories
–Schemas: Mental frameworks
• Can be useful as mental shortcuts
in perceiving other people, but
they are not always accurate
Implicit Personality Theories
• Attractiveness Bias: Implicit
personality theory (“what is
beautiful is good” myth)
• Associate attractiveness with
being more intelligent, happier,
and better adjusted,
competence, sociability, morality
The Attractiveness Bias
–Teachers rate attractive
children as smarter, and higher
achieving
The Attractiveness Bias
–Adults attribute cause of
unattractive child’s
misbehavior to personality,
attractive child’s to situation
–Judges give longer prison
sentences to unattractive
people
• Researchers have found few
differences between beautiful
and plain people
–Attractive people tend to be
less lonely, more popular, and
less anxious in social situations.
–Attractiveness is not correlated
with intelligence, mental health,
or self-esteem
–Attractive people are more likely
to attribute other people’s
approval of their
accomplishments to looks rather
than effort or talent.
Focus on Neuroscience
• The ventral striatum predicts
reward: activity increases when an
unexpected reward appears and
decreases when an expected
reward fails to appear
Focus on Neuroscience
• The ventral striatum is
activated when we make direct
eye contact with a physically
attractive person (fMRI study)
• When gaze is shifted away,
activity in the ventral striatum
decreases
Effects of Personal Appearance
The baby-face bias
–people with rounder heads, large
eyes, small jawbones, etc., rated
as more naïve, honest, helpless,
kind, and warm than maturefaced
–generalize to animals, women,
babies
Interpersonal Attraction
• Understanding prejudice helps
illuminate reasons that some
people to dislike / hate others.
• It’s also important to examine why
people like / love others!
Keys to Attraction
The Environment:
• Physical proximity: as long as you
don’t initially dislike the person,
your liking for him / her will
increase with additional contact.
• Mere-exposure effect
Keys to Attraction
The Environment cont’d:
• Circumstance can influence
attraction.
–Comfortable vs. uncomfortable
physical surroundings.
–Primacy effect?
Keys to Attraction
Similarity:
• Attitudes, interests, values,
backgrounds, beliefs.
• People prefer relationships that
are balanced (mutual
acquaintances and that
mentioned above).
Keys to Attraction
Similarity cont’d:
• People who share attitudes tend
to validate one another's view of
the world.
• BUT, what about reciprocal
causality?
Keys to Attraction
Similarity cont’d:
–Attraction can be both a cause and
a consequence of similarity.
–Ex: You like someone b/c his
attitudes are similar to yours. But it
may be possible that, as a result of
liking him, your attitudes will
become more similar to his.
Keys to Attraction
Physical Attractiveness:
• Influences the conclusions of a
person’s character.
• Positive attribute –others’ good
looks enhances our own public
image.
Keys to Attraction
Physical Attractiveness cont’d:
• Research states that mothers
tend to show attractive babies
more affection.
• Give good-looking people the
benefit of the doubt – can lead to
self-fulfilling prophecy?
Keys to Attraction
Physical Attractiveness cont’d:
• Matching hypothesis.
–People tend to date, marry, etc. with
those of similar attractiveness.
–Fear of rejection? Compromise?
Keys to Attraction
Exchange: relationships based on
trading rewards.
• Reward theory of attraction:
–Tend to like people who make us feel
rewarded and appreciated.
Keys to Attraction
• Exchange cont’d:
–Aronson’s (1994) gain-loss theory:
suggests that increases in
rewarding behavior influence
attractiveness more than constant
rewarding behavior.
Keys to Attraction
Exchange cont’d:
–Ex: Meet future spouse at a local
gathering. His / her behavior gradually
changed form indifference to flatter.
–You would be inclined to like this person
MORE (in this situation) than if s/he
immediately started the flattery.
–“Keep score” of the exchanges?
–Need equity (fairness) to develop &
maintain relationship.
Keys to Attraction
Intimacy: Quality of genuine
closeness and trust in communication
with another person.
• Communication progresses from
“safe” superficial topics to deeprooted feelings.
• Self-disclosure of feelings/thoughts
–Reciprocity of emotions / exchanges
when dealing with self-disclosure.
Handout / Overhead
• 4 - Attributes Rated Most
Attractive by Members of the
Opposite Sex
• 5 – Activity: Dear Abby
Activity
• 6 - Making attributions
assignment
• 7 - Attribution Scale
Activity
• Take out a sheet of scrap
paper
• For each of the following
slides, write a brief
explanation of the behavior
of the person in the pictures
that follow.
Watch the next 4 slides together
• Katrina helpers
Attribution
Explaining Behavior
Attribution
• The process of explaining
the causes of people’s
behavior, including one’s
own.
Attribution
•
May be internal or external:
–Internal: Based on characteristics
of the person
–External attribution: Based on
situational factors
0
Which did you make most in the
previous photos?
Activities:
• 8 - Practice identifying internal vs.
external
WHY DO WE DO THIS???
• What conditions might make us
less likely to make attribution
errors?
Two-stage Model of
Attributions
Example: Joe laughs hysterically while watching a TV
comedy. What can we conclude?
Observer’s goal
Automatic
Attribution
Controlled
Attribution
What kind of
person is Joe?
Person: Joe
laughs
easily
Revision:
could be a
funny show
How funny is the
TV comedy?
Situation:
the TV show
is funny
Revision:
maybe Joe
laughs easily
Errors in Attribution
• Did you make more internal or
external attributions?
• Most people attribute the behavior of
others to internal rather than external
factors.
• We call that tendency the
fundamental attribution error
• Did you make more external
attributions for others?
Attribution Biases
The Fundamental Attribution Error:
the tendency to attribute the behavior
of others to internal, (personal)
characteristics, while ignoring or
underestimating the effects of external
(situational) factors
Story time!
• 9 – Attribution of responsibility
Attribution Biases
Fundamental attribution error plays
a role in:
• Blaming the victim: The tendency
to blame a victim of misfortune for
having somehow caused the
problem or not taking steps to avoid
or prevent it.
Attribution Biases
Fundamental attribution error plays
a role in:
–just-world hypothesis: the
assumption that the world is fair and
that therefore people get what they
deserve and deserve what they get
–When evidence contradicts the “just
world” people are more likely to have
sympathy and demand justice
Attribution Biases
• Actor–Observer Discrepancy:
tendency to attribute own behavior to
external causes, and the behavior of
others to internal causes (especially
with negative outcomes)
• less susceptible with friends and
relatives.
• One explanation: we have more
information about the potential causes
of our behavior than we do about
other people’s behavior.
Attribution Biases
• The Self-Serving Bias:
tendency to attribute own
successes to internal
causes and unsuccessful
outcomes to external
causes
I DIDN’T DO IT!
Attribution Biases
• Cross-Cultural Differences
–Western culture: people are in
charge of own destinies; more
attributions to personality
–Some Eastern cultures: fate in
charge of destiny; more attributions
to situation
Cross-Cultural Differences
0.70
0.60
United States
Attributions to internal
disposition
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0
India
Age (years)
8
11
15
Adult
Other attribution errors:
• The self-effacing bias (or
modesty bias):
–collectivist cultures
–opposite of the self-serving bias
–blaming failure on internal
factors, while attributing
success to external factors
Practice
• 11 – Concept Check: Attribution
Errors
Kelly’s Covariation Theory of
Attribution
Handouts in notes
Person vs. Situation Attributions
• Have to decide whether behavior is
due to something about personality, or
whether anyone would do same thing
in that situation
Person vs. Situation Attributions
• Kelley’s 3 questions in making an
attribution
– does this person regularly behave this way in this
situation?
– do others regularly behave this way in this
situation?
– does this person behave this way in many other
situations?
• Example: Susan is angry while driving in a
traffic jam
Kelley’s Attributional Logic
(1) Does Susan
regularly get
angry in traffic
jams?
NO
No personality
or situational
attribution
YES
(2) Do many
other people
get angry in
traffic jams?
YES
Situational
attribution:
traffic jams
make people
mad
NO
(3) Does Susan
get angry in
many other
situations?
YES
NO
Personality
attribution,
general
Personality
attribution,
particular
Social Psychology of
Attitudes
Attitude:
• Learned tendency to evaluate
some object, person, or issue
in a particular way
• May be positive, negative, or
ambivalent
• Three components: cognitive,
affective, behavioral
Attitudes most determine behavior when:
1. Attitudes are extreme or frequently
expressed
2. They’re formed through experience
3. You’re knowledgeable about the
subject
4. You have a vested interest in the
subject
5. You anticipate a favorable outcome
or response from others for doing
so.
The Effects of Behavior on Attitudes
• Cognitive dissonance: An
unpleasant state of
psychological tension
(dissonance) that occurs when
there’s an inconsistency
between two thoughts or
perceptions (cognitions).
The Effects of Behavior on Attitudes
• C.D. typically results when
attitudes and behavior are in
conflict
• C.D. can change or strengthen an
attitude so it’s consistent with a
behavior that has already been
performed
Social Influence:
Social Influence:
Conformity, Obedience,
and Compliance
Conformity: Following
the Crowd
Conformity
• The tendency to adjust
one’s behavior, attitudes, or
beliefs to group norms in
response to real or
imagined group pressure
Conformity
• 1951
• Solomon Asch’s studies
investigated whether people
would still conform to the
group even when the group
opinion was clearly wrong
Asch’s Experiments on
Conformity
• All but 1 in group
was confederate
• Seating rigged
• Asked to rate
which line matched
a “standard” line
• Confederates were
instructed to pick Standard lines
the wrong line
12/18 times
1
2
3
Comparison lines
Asch’s Experiments on
Conformity
• Results
–75% conformed to at least
one wrong choice
–subjects gave wrong answer
(conformed) on 37% of the
critical trials
Factors Influencing
Conformity
• Factors that Promote Conformity:
– Facing unanimous group
– Give response in front of the group
– Haven’t committed to a different idea
– Task is ambiguous
– Doubt abilities
– Attracted to / want to belong to the
group
Factors Influencing Conformity
We conform for two basic reasons:
• Normative social influence: behavior
motivated by the desire to gain social
acceptance and approval.
• Informational social influence: behavior
motivated by the desire to be correct
– Conformity is decreased when we have an
ally in our dissent from majority opinion, even
if the dissenter’s competence is questionable.
Factors Influencing Conformity
• Was it informational or normative
influence that caused the conformity?
• Subjects claim informational
influence:
–subjects said doubting their own
perceptual abilities led them to
conform – didn’t report seeing the
lines the way the confederates had
Factors Influencing
Conformity
• Variations to test informational
influence hypothesis
– confederates voted out loud, but subjects
wrote their vote down
• Results
– conformity dropped significantly
• Suggests that the original subjects
conformed due to normative
influences, not informational
Culture and Conformity
• Individualistic cultures
– emphasize independence, self-expression,
and standing out from the crowd;
– conformity seen as negative
• Collectivistic cultures
– More conformity
– publicly conforming while privately
disagreeing is regarded as socially
appropriate
Obedience
Just Following Orders
Obedience
Complying with the command of an
authority figure
• Milgram
interested in
unquestioning
obedience to
orders
Stanley Milgram’s Studies
Basic study procedure
• teacher and learner
(learner always
confederate)
• watch learner being
strapped into chair
• learner expresses
concern over his
“heart condition”
Stanley Milgram’s Studies
• Teacher goes to another room with
experimenter
• Shock generator panel – 15 to 450
volts, labels “slight shock” to
“XXX”
• Asked to give higher shocks for
every mistake learner makes
Stanley Milgram’s Studies
• Learner protests
more and more
as shock
increases
• 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…”
Stanley Milgram’s Studies
• How many people would go to
the highest shock level?
• 65% of the subjects went to the
end, even those that protested
– far beyond all predictions
Stanley Milgram’s Studies
Percentage
of subjects
who obeyed
experimenter
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
The majority of
subjects continued
to obey to the end
Moderate
Very
Extreme
XXX
Slight (75-120) Strong
strong Intense intensity Danger (435-450)
(15-60)
(135-180) (195-240) (255-300) (315-360) severe
(375-420)
Shock levels in volts
Explaining Milgram’s Results
• Invalid or unreliable results?
–numerous replications support
the results
• Sadistic subject population?
–videotapes of Milgram’s subjects
show extreme distress
Explaining Milgram’s Results
• Did subjects think it was fake?
–No way! It was very convincing.
• Males are aggressive?
–No … follow up with female
subjects produced the same
results
What impacted the subjects?
• Framework to obey
–Expected to follow
directions
–Were paid
What impacted the subjects?
• Context
– Trusted and respected the
experimenter’s authority (Yale)
– Didn’t want to appear rude; were all
polite
• Variations
– office setting: 48%
– orders given over the phone: 23%
– ordinary man gives orders to
continue: 20%
What impacted the subjects?
• Gradual, repetitive escalation
–Start small – can be justified
–15 volt increments are small
• Experimenter’s behavior
–Assured of experimenter’s
responsibility for consequences
What impacted the subjects?
• Separation from the learner
–Separate room
–Depersonalized (flip a switch)
–Pleas were to experimenter
• Variations:
–When in same room: 40%
–Teacher required to force learner’s
hand on a “shock plate” – 30%
Explanations for Milgram’s
Results
• When teachers allowed to
choose the shock level
– 95% did not exceed 150 volts
–3% went to 450 volts
• More likely to disobey if they
saw another teacher rebel –
10%
Ethical Issues of Milgram
• Accused of causing emotional stress,
especially when subjects realized that
they would kill if ordered to do so
• Milgrams response: People are mad
because the findings are unattractive
– 84% later said they were glad to have
participated
– 1.3% said they were sorry
• Ethical concerns led to the
establishment of ethical guidelines
Real world value?
• Shows importance of social
influence
• Ilustrates that we can resist
pressures
• Conformity and obedience
aren’t entirely bad
Compliance and Persuasion
What if you’re not in a
group and you’re not an
authority figure?
Compliance and Persuasion
• Compliance: When people adjust
their behavior because of a
request. The request can be
explicit or implicit.
• Persuasion: Deliberate attempt to
influence the attitude or behavior
of another when they have a
choice. Sales!
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Contradictions are
uncomfortable.
• Because they're uncomfortable,
contradictions motivate attitude
change.
Cognitive Dissonance Tactics
• Ben Franklin Effect: enemies who do
you one favor will want to do more
• Hazing: get people to like their situation
by making them suffer to get there
• Counterattitudinal advocacy: when we
state opinions we don't believe, we start to
believe them
• Labeling: get people to act a certain way
by talking to them as if they already were
that way
Ben Franklin Effect
• “Ben Franklin Effect”: Enemies
who do you one favor will want to
do more
• Story
• Why does it work?
– Remember: Contradictions are
uncomfortable; thus motivate
attitude change.
Ben Franklin Effect
• Ben's political opponent originally had
antagonistic views toward Ben.
• Ben politely asked him for a small favor.
• The opponent obliged.
• After obliging, the opponent feels cognitive
dissonance.
• Ben is his enemy, and yet, he just did his
enemy a favor. He just contradicted
himself.
Ben Franklin Effect
Logical contradictions are discomforting.
How can he get rid of this contradiction?
There are two ways:
– take back book (change behavior so it aligns
with original attitudes about Ben)
– decide Ben is actually a good guy (change
attitudes about Ben so they align with new
behavior)
Ben Franklin Effect
• It is very easy to change one's attitude
to relieve dissonance, but very difficult
to change one's behavior.
• Thus, the political opponent becomes
Ben's friend, and in fact, is even more
willing to do more favors for Ben, to further
relieve any evidence of contradiction
between his thoughts and his actions.
Ben’s Lesson:
• To convert an enemy into a
friend, try asking your enemy
for a small favor. If your enemy
obliges, he or she will be even
more willing to do you more
favors.
Hazing
• Get people to like their situation
by making them suffer to get
there
Hazing
• If you spend a lot of effort to get
somewhere, and you don't like the
end result, that's a contradiction. Why
would you spend so much effort for
something you don't even like?
Contradictions make us feel
uncomfortable and even stupid. Thus,
we change our attitude about the
situation, and say that we like it.
Hazing
• Experimental Basis:
– Cult Infiltration Research
• Real World Basis:
– Fraternities
– Military
– Falling in love
– Graduate students
Hazing Lesson
• Approval of a situation is
greatly amplified if people have
spent lots of effort to reach that
situation. Sometimes an
effortful path can be purposely
planned in the interest of
manipulating attitude.
Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy
• When we state opinions we don't
believe, we start to believe them
• Explanation: Cognitive dissonance
– Why am I saying something that I don't
believe? It's a contradiction and it
doesn't make sense. Maybe I believe
what I'm saying after all.
Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy
• Experimental Basis:Really Boring
Tasks (Festinger & Carlsmith
1959)
– College students spend an hour
performing a series of excruciatingly
boring and repetitive tasks. Three
experimental conditions then follow:
Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy
Three conditions follow:
1. Control: Fill out questionnaire
describing how much they liked the
experiment.
2. Received $1
3. Received $20.
Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy
Results:
Condition
how much they liked
experiment
1. Control
they really hated it
2. Received $1 they liked it
3. Received
$20
they either liked it a tiny
bit or just didn't like it
Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy
Real-world basis: AIDS Prevention
(Aronson 1991)
• College students asked to compose a
speech describing the dangers of
AIDS and the importance of using
condoms. Students were placed in
one of several experimental
conditions:
Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy
1. Just compose the speech
2. Compose speech, then recite it on
video camera for a high school
audience
3. Compose speech, write a list of
circumstances in which you have
failed to use condoms, and then recite
your speech on camera for a high
school audience
Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy
• After the ordeal, students were given the
opportunity to purchase condoms cheaply.
• Results: Students in the hypocrisy
condition were far more likely to buy
condoms.
• By reminding the students of their failure
to use condoms, and then having them
preach condom usage, Aronson induced
dissonance. To remove this dissonance,
students practiced what they preached.
Counter-Attitudinal Advocacy
Lesson
• Simply asking people to
compose an opposing
argument can make them
change their minds.
Labeling
• Get people to act a certain way
by talking to them as if they
already were that way
• Explained by both cognitive
dissonance and self-fulfilling
prophecy.
Labeling
Explanation 1
• Cognitive dissonance: Why do you
keep describing me as if I'm like that?
I'm not really like that. But you keep
treating me as if I'm like that, and it's
making me uncomfortable. I'll change
my behavior so that it agrees with
your view of me.
Labeling
Explanation 2
• Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Labeling could
be interpreted as a self-fulfilling prophecy
effect. The difference is that with labeling,
we are consciously constructing artificial
expectations of a person. However, that
person doesn't know it's artificial, so it's all
the same to him or her.
Labeling
Experimental Basis
• 5th Grader Trash Pickup (Miller,
Brickman): Trying to solve the
problem of how to get 5th graders
to pick up their trash during
recess.
Labeling
Three different experimental conditions:
• Control: Researchers didn't do anything
to the 5th graders.
• Persuasion: 5th graders listen to
lectures about environmental awareness
and the consequences of improper litter
disposal.
• Labels: Adults at school label the 5th
graders as really clean people.
Labeling
Results:
Condition
Control
% of kids who put
trash in the cans
25%
Persuasion
25%
Labels
85%
Labeling
Labeling Lesson:
Get people to act a certain way
by treating them as if they
already act that way.
Sales Techniques
Cognitive Dissonance
Reciprocity Norm
Rule of Commitment
Sales Techniques
Based on cognitive dissonance
• Foot-in-the-door
• Four walls technique
Foot-in-the-door
• People are more likely to
satisfy a large request after
agreeing to a small one
– Based on cognitive dissonance
Foot-in-the-door
– Ask for something small at first, then hit
customer with larger request later
– Small request has paved the way to
compliance with the larger request
– Cognitive dissonance results if person has
already granted a request for one thing, then
refuses to give the larger item
Foot-in-the-door
• Experimental Basis: Homeowner
Front yard Signs (Freedman & Fraser,
1966)
• Psychologists went door to door in
Palo Alto, asking housewives if they
would grant ridiculous requests.
– Kitchen searches
– Yard signs
Foot-in-the-door
Both experiments had two conditions.
• First condition: subjects were asked
only the large requests.
• Second condition: psychologists
preceded their large request with a a
small request. For instance, they
might first ask the housewives to sign
a petition about driving safely before
asking them to post the giant sign.
Foot-in-the-door: Results
Large
request
Kitchen
intrusion
Giant lawn
sign
Preceded by Large
small request compliance
request
Yes
52.8%
No
22.2%
Yes
76%
No
17%
Foot-in-the-door
Based on:
–Rule of Commitment: Once
you make a commitment,
there is pressure to be
consistent
Foot-in-the-door
Lesson
Sell large requests by first
asking for small ones. Smooth
transition.
Four walls technique
–Question customer in such a way
that gets answers consistent with
the idea that they need to own
object
–Feeling of cognitive dissonance
results if person chooses not to
buy this thing that they “need”
Sales Techniques
Based on reciprocity norm:
• Door-in-the-face
• That’s not all
Reciprocity and Sales
–Rule of reciprocity: if
someone gives you
something, you feel obligated
to return the favor
Reciprocity and Sales
• Door-in-the-face technique:
Start with a request that’s likely to
be denied. Then, admit that the
initial favor was excessive and
substitute a lesser alternative.
• Appears the salesman has made
a concession and the buyer feels
obligated to give a little, too.
Reciprocity and Sales
• That’s not all: Salesman
makes an offer, but before it
can be refused, adds on
something extra.
• Appears to be a favor that you
feel like you should
reciprocate.
Sales Techniques
Based on Rule of Commitment
• Low-ball technique
Commitment and Sales
• Low-ball technique: Get a
commitment by understating
the cost. Once committed, the
cost of compliance goes up.
• Person feels like they have to
keep the commitment they
made
Preventing Reactance
• Psychological reactance: if pressure is
too blatant, has opposite of intended
effect
• leads to salespeople using softer
techniques so that person feels they
have a choice
• often phrase pressure into questions
– “would you please put your books and notes away for
the quiz?”
Defense Against Persuasion
Techniques
• Sleep on it—don’t act on something
right away
• Play devil’s advocate—think of all the
reasons you shouldn’t buy the product
or comply with the request
• Pay attention to your gut feelings—if
you feel pressured, you probably are
Apply it!
Assignment
• Whole-class: Agree on a serious topic
on which you would like to persuade
others. (Example: smoking)
• Groups: Each group will create a
“sales presentation” using one of the
persuasion techniques.
Cooperation, Competition,
and Conflict
Cooperation, Competition, and Conflict
• Cooperation: Any type of behavior in
which several people work together to
attain a goal.
• Competition: Trying to attain a goal
for one’s self while denying others that
goal.
• Conflict: When 1 group or person
believes another stand in the way of
their goal.
Cooperation, Competition, and Conflict
• Social Dilemmas:
Situations in which actions
that reward one person will,
if adopted by everyone,
produce negative
consequences for everyone.
Cooperation, Competition, and Conflict
• Prisoner’s Dilemma: Scenario
between 2 prisoners separated after
arrest who must decide between
silence and confession.
– Both silent = both get relatively short
prison sentences
– Both confess = both get moderate prison
sentences
– One confesses = confessor goes free,
partner gets very long sentence
1-Shot Prisoner’s Dilemma Game
• Game in lab setting
Player 2
Defects
Cooperates
Cooperates
Player 1
– choice to cooperate
or defect
– consequence is
monetary
– highest vs. lowest
individual payoff
– highest vs. lowest
total payoff
Defects
$3
$3
$5
$0
$0
$5
$1
$1
Emotions and Cooperation
Player 2
Cooperates
Cooperates
Gratitude
Gratitude
Anger
Defects
Player 1
• Cooperation +
cooperation
• Failure to cooperate +
failure to cooperate
• Cooperation + failure
to cooperate
• Failure to cooperate +
cooperation
Guilt
Defects
Guilt
Anger
Disaffection
Disaffection
Resource Dilemmas
• People share some common resource,
thus creating inherent conflict between
the interests of the individual and those
of the group, and also between people’s
short-term and long-term interests.
• Example: Farmers using water from the
same lake. Each would benefit from
unrestricted water use, but if all do it, all
will suffer.
• We need to cooperate!
Fostering Cooperation
• Communication can reduce
competition
–Must be non-threatening
–Relevant
–Open
–Praise for past cooperation
–Tit-for-tat strategy (TFT)
Fostering Cooperation
• Rapoport’s Tit-for-Tat (TFT) strategy
– first time you meet new partner,
cooperate
– for all other trials, do what they did to
you on previous trial
– can’t “win” with TFT
– this strategy gets others to cooperate
Fostering Cooperation
• Why is TFT effective for cooperation?
– it’s nice - cooperates from the start,
encouraging cooperation
– it’s not exploitable - discourages defection
by reciprocating each defection
– it’s forgiving - as soon as partner begins
cooperating, TFT reciprocates
– it’s transparent - partner quickly learns that
best strategy is to cooperate
Interpersonal Conflict
Conflict is especially likely in a
• Zero-sum game: One
person’s gains are subtracted
from the other person’s
resources. The sum of the
gains and losses is zero.
Interpersonal Conflict
Causes of interpersonal conflict:
• Competition for scarce resources
• Revenge
• People attribute unfriendly or
selfish motives to others
• Faulty communication
Managing Conflict
• Bargaining: Each side produces
offers and counter-offers until they
find a solution that’s acceptable to
both sides.
• Third-party interventions: Outside
mediator helps focus on important
issues, defuse emotions, clarify
positions, and make suggestions for
compromise
• Superordinate goals: Be made
to feel that they are all part of the
same group and share the same
goals.
Group Processes
• Group Polarization
• Social Loafing
• Social Facilitation