* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Ch 14 - psimonciniohs.net
Interpersonal attraction wikipedia , lookup
Group development wikipedia , lookup
Carolyn Sherif wikipedia , lookup
Social dilemma wikipedia , lookup
Self-categorization theory wikipedia , lookup
Interpersonal relationship wikipedia , lookup
Impression formation wikipedia , lookup
Belongingness wikipedia , lookup
Solomon Asch wikipedia , lookup
James M. Honeycutt wikipedia , lookup
Social loafing wikipedia , lookup
Albert Bandura wikipedia , lookup
Attribution bias wikipedia , lookup
Introspection illusion wikipedia , lookup
Attitude change wikipedia , lookup
In-group favoritism wikipedia , lookup
Group cohesiveness wikipedia , lookup
False consensus effect wikipedia , lookup
Social tuning wikipedia , lookup
Communication in small groups wikipedia , lookup
Group dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
Milgram experiment wikipedia , lookup
To begin this chapter on social psychology, we are going to conduct an experiment. Break into groups of between 5 and 7— no loners in this experiment. Pay attention to the following situation. You and the other members of your group are on a cruise in the Pacific Ocean In a terrible storm, your ship sinks and your group scrambles into a lifeboat. There are no professional sailors on board. Your group is alone in a lifeboat, at sea. Searching the lifeboat, you find only the following items. A sextant, 5 lbs of chocolate, 5 feet of nylon cord (shoelace width), a 3”x6” mirror, one quart of scotch whiskey, 5 gallons of fresh water, 1 bed sheet, 3 square yards of opaque plastic sheeting, a book of ocean charts (maps), 2 clothes hangers, five 18” x 30” sheets of construction paper and 3 marking pens, 2 boxes of saltines, and a henweigh. What’s a henweigh? Oh, about 3 pounds. Searching the lifeboat, you find only the following items. A sextant, 5 lbs of chocolate, 5 feet of nylon cord (shoelace width), a 3”x6” mirror, one quart of scotch whiskey, 5 gallons of fresh water, 1 bed sheet, 3 square yards of opaque plastic sheeting, a book of ocean charts (maps), 2 clothes hangers, five 18” x 30” sheets of construction paper and 3 marking pens, and 2 boxes of saltines. Working as a team, prioritize this list, from 1 to 13, from most important to keep to least important to keep. You have 10 minutes! Tom Hanks’ character in Castaway was miserable. He had plentiful amounts of food, water, and shelter, and he lived in a tropical paradise. Yet he was unhappy. Why? Why do people need other people? Humans have been conditioned to have needs for praise, respect, love and affection, the sense of achievement, and other rewarding experiences—things that can only be satisfied by other human beings People experiencing high levels of anxiety seek out company: “Misery loves company.” People like to get together with one another to reduce their uncertainties about themselves People can also offer support in trying times; can serve as mediators if you have problems with others, they can react to your ideas or simply listen so you can “unload” Philip Zimbardo and the Stanford Prison Experiment Philip Zimbardo and the Stanford Prison Experiment Recruitment and Methodology Wanted to learn about behaviors and feelings of prisoners or guards Set up a phony prison in a university building Recruited male college students to participate Randomly assigned 24 participants to role of either prisoner or guard Methodology Guards instructed to make prisoners feel frustrated and not in control Prisoners arrested and booked as real prisoners Guards bullied the prisoners and began “counts” Results Prisoners staged a rebellion on the second day Guards stepped up their harassment and treated rebellion “ringleaders” differently than the “good” prisoners Prisoners told they couldn’t leave; many became anxious Guards increased bullying tactics as they perceived prisoners to be a real threat Zimbardo and his colleagues adapted to their roles Results Everyone took on the role to which they were assigned—the experiment became very realistic Experiment ended after six days instead of two weeks Prisoners had lost their identity Conclusions Individual values and identities can break down under situational pressure where one group has more power than other groups Prisons have traditionally been considered places of punishment and rehabilitation. Zimbardo concluded that rehabilitation may be difficult. Zimbardo: “Prisons are evil places that demean humanity. . . They are as bad for the guards as they are for the prisoners Social psychology: how people’s thoughts, feelings, perceptions, motives, and behavior are influenced by interactions with others Situationism The view that environmental conditions influence people’s behavior as much or more than their personal dispositions do. Social Role One of several socially defined patterns of behavior that are expected of persons in a given group Script A person’s knowledge about the sequence of events and actions that are expected of a particular social role Social Norms Unwritten rules for the ways that members should act—they dictate socially appropriate attitudes and behaviors Theodore Newcomb and the Bennington College experiment Can norms of a liberal campus have a greater influence than family traditions and attitudes? Yes Chameleon Effect The tendency to mimic other people Solomon Asch’s Experiment Conformity Experiment Subject asked to match one of three lines to a “standard line;” the answer was obvious Standard Line Comparison Lines Solomon Asch’s Experiment Other group members insisted that one of the shorter lines was actually the same height as the standard line Subject began to question what he had thought was the obvious answer Subject is relatively likely to give the same answer as the group, even if it is obviously incorrect: 70% of participants gave at least one incorrect response, conforming to the group Solomon Asch’s Experiment Results of Asch's Study 12 10 # of 8 subjects 6 making conforming 4 2 responses 0 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 # of conforming responses made by subjects Less than 1% of subjects chose the wrong line when asked the question on their own More than 1/3 of subjects chose the wrong line when asked in a group that had chosen the same wrong line Solomon Asch’s Experiment Normative social influence: conformity when we want to avoid rejection or gain acceptance Individual Heroic Defiance Heroes (Sherron Watkins and SGT Joe Darby) are people who are able to resist situational forces that overwhelm their peers and remain true to personal values Factors that influence whether a person will yield to group pressure •Size of the majority •Presence of a partner who dissented from the majority •Size of discrepancy between the correct answer and the majority opinion •People conform with unanimous majorities of as few as 3 people, but not if they faced only 1 or 2 Additional factors influencing conformity •Judgment task is difficult or ambiguous •Group members are perceived as especially competent •Resources are given publicly rather than privately •When unanimity is broken, the rate of conformity drops dramatically Groupthink Groups can be pressured to conform Groupthink Conformity bias leads the group to take actions that each member might normally consider unwise Seven Conditions •Isolation of group •High group cohesiveness •Directive leadership •Lack of norms requiring methodical procedures •Homogeneity of members backgrounds •High stress from external threats plus low hope People who have commanded obedience Hitler David Koresh Mussolini Jim Jones Osama Bin Laden Stanley Milgram’s Experiment Stanley Milgram’s Experiment Studied obedience and how people respond to orders from an authority figure Real subjects were assigned the role of teacher Actors assigned the role of learner, but the actual subjects thought the learners were also subjects in the experiment Teacher instructed to give the learner electric shocks if he answered a question wrong Teacher didn’t know the shocks were not real How likely would you be to obey instructions from someone wearing a lab coat? Learner would groan and eventually scream in agony The experimenter insisted that the teacher continue Watch this film clip Teachers were visibly distressed about the experiment, but 60% continued it until the end When the learner said he had a “slight heart condition” and screamed even louder, 65% of teachers continued until the end Similar results for women and for men Milgram: Further Findings • Teachers most likely to obey perceived authority figures from prestigious institutions • More likely to obey instructions when “victim” was at a distance and depersonalized • More likely to obey without role models who defied the authority figure’s orders Implications of Milgram’s Experiments Obedience to authority can keep people from following their own morals and standards Ordinary people can perform cruelties in the process of obeying authority figures in their daily lives Incrementally increasing the level of shock made it more acceptable for the teachers to continue Bystander Apathy Kitty Genovese case (1968) the callous indifference of New Yorkers to the obvious plight of another person John Darley and Bibb Latane’ Laboratory analogues of the difficulties faced by bystanders in real emergency situations John Darley Bibb Latane Student in room; heard person in another room having a seizure The likelihood of intervention decreases as the group increases in size—each person assumes that others will help John Darley and Bibb Latané: Hypothesis Hypothesized that people would be less likely to report smoke in a room if others were present The concept of pluralistic ignorance: the tendency of people to look toward others for cues about how to act, particularly in emergency situations Darley and Latané : Methodology and Results Placed subjects in rooms that filled with smoke 75% of subjects reported smoke if they were alone; 10% if they were with confederates of the researchers; 38% if they were with other subjects Darley and Latané In order for bystanders to help: • People have to notice the incident • People have to interpret the incident as urgent • People have to take responsibility for helping out But… • People are less likely to help if others are around Pluralistic ignorance: people assume someone else will help Epileptic seizure experiment Darley and Latané There are certain circumstances under which people are more likely to help someone in need Tom Moriarty’s 1975 Experiments: Situational Power New Yorkers watched as a thief snatched a woman’s suitcase in a restaurant People watched a thief grab a portable radio from a beach blanket Variables: “Do you have the time?” Little intervention “Will you please keep an eye on my bag (radio) while I am gone?” Intervention Elliot Aronson: Reward Theory of Attraction Most good relationships can be seen as an exchange of benefits or something intangible (praise, status, etc.) The Reward Theory of Attraction: attraction is a form of social learning; we like best those who give us maximum rewards at minimum cost The Four Powerful Sources of Reward Factor 1: physical proximity Roommates, next door neighbors, etc. Proximity helps people make friends, but it does not ensure lasting friendship. Factor 2: Similarity Similarity—we tend to choose friends whose backgrounds, attitudes, and interests are similar to ours Husbands and wives tend to have similar economic, religious, and educational backgrounds, as well as similar ages, race, social status, attitudes and values For our date tonight, let’s do some math homework. Similarity (continued) The power of shared attitudes are Easier to communicate—You such a fewer arguments & groovy misunderstandings guy! Most feel uneasy around those who always challenge our views—often translate uneasiness into hostility Agreement about what is stimulating, worthwhile, or fun—basis for sharing activities Similarity (continued) However, complementarity— an attraction between opposite types of people— is not uncommon Mary Matilin, a major Republican Party strategist, and James Carville, a major Democratic Party strategist, have been happily married for several years. Factor 3: Self-disclosure Good friends and lovers share intimate details about themselves—sends signals of trust Factor 4: Physical Attractiveness People usually find it more rewarding to associate with people they consider physically attractive than with people they consider plain or homely Expectancy-Value Theory: people usually decide whether to pursue a relationship by weighing the value they see in another person against their expectation of success in a relationship We initiate relationships with the most attractive people we think will probably like us in return Noteworthy exception: people with low selfesteem Leon Festinger Mental adjustments that occur in people who voluntarily undergo unpleasant experiences When people voluntarily act in ways that produce discomfort or otherwise clash with their attitudes and values, they develop a highly motivating mental state called cognitive dissonance People are motivated to avoid the uncomfortable state of dissonance If people find themselves experiencing cognitive dissonance, they attempt to reduce it in ways that are predictable Either change behavior or change cognitions (Marines: the latter— rationalization or developing a stronger organizational loyalty) Cognitive dissonance theory: when people’s cognitions and actions are in conflict (a state of dissonance) they often reduce the conflict by changing their thinking to fit their behavior. People don’t like to see themselves as foolish or inconsistent. So to explain their own behavior to themselves, people are motivated to change their attitudes. Otherwise, it would threaten their self-esteem How People Perceive One Another Attribution Theory is an analysis of how we interpret and understand other people’s behavior. Someone honks at you in a traffic jam, you usually think that the person is pushy or mean—personal characteristics called dispositional factors But, if you discover that he honked because he was rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. . . That is a situational factor We tend to explain our own actions in terms of situational factors—we attribute our failures to forces outside our control and successes to our own effort and skill; but we tend to attribute the behavior of others to their dispositions— called fundamental attribution error— a common occurrence Fundamental Attribution Error: We tend to attribute other people’s actions and misfortunes to their personal traits, rather than to situational forces More prevalent in individualistic cultures as opposed to collectivist cultures More of a bias than a mistake; error in that an Klutzy ol’ observer may overlook Vanessa— must be a legitimate, situational blonde thing. explanations Self-serving bias: most people attribute their own success to internal factors (motivation, talent or skill). But when things go poorly, they attribute failure to external factors beyond their control We passed. We’re so smart! We lost ‘cause the coach blew it. Out-group bias: beliefs in inequality make it easier for you to treat members of an out-group with contempt. “Us” vs. “Them” When perceptions or sets of assumptions about people or specific groups of people become exaggerated, stereotypes are formed Example Military people Born killers Straight-laced Conservative Foul-mouthed Like outdoors activities Like giving orders Insensitive Like to drink Stereotypes can strengthen and help maintain prejudices Prejudice: negative attitudes, beliefs, and feelings toward an individual based solely on his/her membership in a particular group Prejudgment—deciding beforehand what a person will be like instead of withholding judgment until it can be based on her or his individual qualities. To hold stereotypes about groups of people is to be prejudiced about them. Before we continue our study of prejudice, let’s do an experiment. Like, OK, you guys (and girls), break up into groups of 2-5 people I’ll now assign each group a letter from the alphabet. Each group will be assigned an ethnic group from our society. In the next 5 minutes you are to brainstorm a list of common stereotypes about each group—remember this is in the name of science, so right now, don’t worry about offending anyone. Be as honest as you can about the stereotypes you have heard about each group. Group A: Cheerleaders Remember to brainstorm Group C: Mexicans all aspects of Group D: African-Americans these groups: good and bad. Group E: Blondes be honest. Be Group F: Asians prepared to share your list Group G: Portuguese with the class. Group H: OHS Cowboys Group B: Jocks/jockettes Prejudice is an attitude and should be distinguished from discrimination. Discrimination: is the unequal treatment of members of certain groups—negative actions. Possible for prejudiced people not to discriminate; possible for a person to discriminate not out of prejudice, but in compliance with social pressures There are five causes of prejudice listed in the textbook Dissimilarity and social distance People tend place people they perceive as being unlike them (and the people in their group) at greater social distances. Such inequality translates into inferiority, making it easier for you to treat members of an outgroup with contempt Economic Competition: when one group wins economic benefits or jobs at the other group’s expense, prejudice easily comes into play. Prejudice against African-Americans is greatest among white groups poised at an economic level just above that of average Blacks Scapegoats I’m just mad ‘cause I’m 18 but I look like I’m 45. Prejudice and associated discrimination are the result of displaced aggression—an innocent person or group receives blame when others feel threatened Scapegoat Theory When people are prevented from achieving their goals, they often react by being aggressive When no obvious target for aggression, they displace frustration onto other people who are not responsible for the problem, but who cannot strike back or cause them social disapproval: the scapegoat. Examples: Arabic and even French people in the U.S. before the war in Iraq Conformity to Social Norms No way I’m voting for Clinton—the United States is not ready for a female president. An unthinking tendency to maintain conditions the way they are, even when those conditions involve unfair assumptions, prejudices and customs Media Stereotypes Stereotyped images used to depict groups of people in film, print and on TV to reinforce prejudicial social norms Equal Status Contact When people are placed together under conditions of equal status, where neither wields power over the other, the chances of developing understanding increase Group Behavior Social facilitation occurs when an individual’s performance improves because of being in a group. Social loafing (or social impairment) is a situation where one’s productivity and learning decrease because he/she is in a group Deindividuation is a situation when group members lose their sense of personal identity and responsibility and the group assumes responsibility for their behavior Groups Common features: interdependence, shared goals, communication Interdependence: an action by one member will influence or affect the other group members or when the same event will influence each one Groups Common Goals Groups usually created to perform tasks or organize activities that no one individual could handle alone Task functions—doing a specific job Social functions— filling emotional needs of members Groups Factors that hold groups together Norms—rules for behavior and attitudes of group members, with some sort of punishment for not abiding by them Ideology—to be cohesive, must share similar values; common ideas, attitudes and goals Commitment—willingness to endure hardships, pay money or undergo humiliation to join, more likely to stay for a long time (fraternities/sororities) Love Relationships Love means different things to different people within different relationships Robert Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love Love can have three components: Passion Intimacy Commitment Romantic love Intensely emotional and sexual fascination with a strong desire for exclusiveness Tends to be short-lived Feelings of excitement, anxiety, tenderness, and jealousy High on passion and intimacy; low on commitment Companionate Love Affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply intertwined Mutual concern and care for each other Self-disclosure: become closer by sharing intimate details about themselves Characteristics: friendship, understanding, and the willingness to make sacrifices; Intimacy, but no passion or commitment Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love Infatuation: high level of passion; but not yet developed into intimacy or a committed relationship Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love Complete love (consummate love) involves passion, intimacy and commitment Current Marriage Statistics Half of all marriages end in divorce; up to 60% of all second marriages Thriving relationships Both partners must see the relationship as rewarding and equitable Communication between partners must be open, ongoing, and mutually validating; longlasting relationships have 5 times more positive interactions than negative ones The Robbers Cave Experiment Muzafer Sherif et al, 1961 Competition created conflict between two similar groups Once conflict occurs, it is difficult to reconcile the groups Forced cooperation to serve the mutual interest of both groups Per dissonance theory, hostility changed to friendliness, which, in turn, led to a change attitude—attitude change resulted from a need to justify altered behavior Boy Scout “Robber’s Cave” Experiment, Stage 1 22 Boy Scouts divided into two equal groups Stage 1: lived separately, developed their own rules and leadership At end of stage 1, began to become aware of the other group “Robber’s Cave” Experiment, Stage 2 In stage 2, intense rivalry developed between the two groups Researchers kept the scores close Competed for prizes “Robber’s Cave” Experiment, Stage 3 Researchers tried to build peace between the two groups Best way: working together toward common goals Implications of Sherif’s Study Peacebuilding worked well; boys ended up getting along More difficult in other, unstaged conflicts Jonathan Lash’s Findings “Tinder” for September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks: “the flammable combination of poverty, powerlessness and hopelessness.” Tie-in with Milgram’s obedience studies: if ordinary, well-fed people can be induced to deliver apparently lethal shocks, how much easier it would be to persuade angry, hopeless young men and women to commit violent acts Kelman’s Application of the Robbers Cave experiment to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Brought together community leaders from both sides for small-group Discussions of mutual problems Encouraged cooperation and minimized rewards for hostile behaviors Mid-level community leaders Private meetings—away from the news media