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