Download Modules 36-38 - CCRI Faculty Web

Social Psychology
Social Psychology
The branch of psychology that
studies how people think, feel, and
behave in social situations
Social Cognition
The mental processes that people use to
make sense out of their social environment






Person perception
Social categorization
Implicit personality theory
Attribution
Attitudes
Stereotypes
Person Perception




Your reactions are determined by your
perceptions of others.
Your goals determine the amount and kind
of information you collect.
You evaluate people partly in terms of how
you expect them to behave (social norms).
Your self-perception influences how you
perceive others.
Physical Attractiveness




Implicit cultural message is “beautiful is
good”
Attractive people are perceived as more
intelligent, happier, and better adjusted.
Really no difference between attractive and
less attractive people on these characteristics
Attractive people are more likely to attribute
other people’s approval of their
accomplishments to looks rather than effort or
talent.
Attribution


Process of inferring the causes of people’s
behavior, including one’s own
The explanation given for a particular
behavior
Attribution Bias





Fundamental attribution error
Actor-observer discrepancy
Blaming the victim (just-world hypothesis)
Self-serving bias
Self-effacing bias
Social Thinking:
Fundamental Attribution Error
We make this error even when
we are given the correct facts:
Williams College study: A woman was
paid and told to act friendly to some
students, unfriendly to others. The
students felt that her behavior was
part of a her disposition, even when
they were told that she was just
obeying instructions.
Using Attitudes as Ways
to “Justify” Injustice

Just-world bias


a tendency to believe that life is fair, e.g., it would
seem horrible to think that you can be a really good person
and bad things could happen to you anyway
Just-world bias leads to “blaming the victim”

we explain others’ misfortunes as being their fault,
Attitudes
What is an attitude?



Predisposition to evaluate some people, groups, or
issues in a particular way
Can be negative or positive
Has three components



Cognitive—thoughts about given topic or situation
Affective—feelings or emotions about topic
Behavioral—your actions regarding the topic or
situation
Social Thinking
Attitudes affect our actions when:
1.
2.
3.
4.
External influences are minimal
The attitude is stable
The attitude is specific to the behavior Example:
The attitude is easily recalled.
“I feel like [attitude] eating at McD’s, and I will
[action];”
1.There are no nutritionists here telling me not to,
2.I’ve enjoyed their food for quite a while,
3.It’s so easy to get the food when I have a craving,
4.It’s easy to remember how good it is when I drive by
that big sign every day.”
Cognitive Dissonance


Unpleasant state of psychological tension or
arousal that occurs when two thoughts or
perceptions are inconsistent
Attitudes and behaviors are in conflict


it is uncomfortable for us
we seek ways to decrease discomfort caused by
the inconsistency
Social Thinking:
Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance:
When our actions are not
in harmony with our
attitudes.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory:
the observation that we tend
to resolve this dissonance by
changing our attitudes to fit
our actions.
Origin of Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Festinger’s Study (1957):
Students were paid either large
or small amounts to express
enjoyment of a boring activity.
Then many of the students
changed their attitudes about
the activity. Which amount
shifted attitudes?
 Getting paid more: “I was
paid to say that.”
 Getting paid less: “Why
would I say it was fun? Just
for a dollar? Weird. Maybe
it wasn’t so bad, now that I
think of it.”
Cognitive Dissonance
If Fiona agrees to do some fundraising
for her college, her attitudes about
school finances might shift to resolve
her cognitive dissonance.
16
Prejudice
A negative attitude toward people who belong
to a specific social group
Levels of Prejudice can Change
Generation
Y
Generation
X
Baby
Boomers
The Silent
Generation
The Greatest
Generation
Support
for
interraci
al dating
The Availability
Heuristic:
Stereotypes are
built on vivid cases
rather than
statistics
Cognitive
dissonance:
“My culture and
family treats
minorities this
way, can we be
wrong?”
Thinking
Habits
Reinforci
ng
Prejudice
Hindsight Bias:
“they should
have known
better,” blames
victims for
misfortunes.
Confirmation
Bias: we are
not likely to
look for
counterexampl
es to our
stereotypes.
Social Relations
Aggression
Definition: Behavior with the
intent of harming another
person.
Aggression can have many
forms and purposes:
 Aggression can be physical,
verbal, relational: e.g.
punching, insulting, shooting,
betraying.
 Aggression can be planned or
reactive.
 Aggression can be driven by
hostile rage or can be a coldly
calculated means to an end.
Social Relations
Psychosocial Factors and
Aggression
Levels of aggression are
influenced by:
 Aversive conditions and
feeling frustrated;
 Getting reinforced for
aggressive behavior;
 Having aggression
modeled at home or in the
media
 Adopting social scripts for
aggression from culture
and the media.
Social Relations
Biochemistry of Aggression
Alcohol
Alcohol may chemically
or psychologically make
the following more likely:
 Disinhibited
aggressive behavior
 Aggressive responses
to frustration
 Violent crimes,
especially spousal
abuse
 Lack of attention to
peacemaking options
 Interpreting neutral
acts as provocations
Aggression in Media: Social Scripts


Aggression portrayed in
video, music, books, and
other media, follows and
teaches a script.
When confronted with new
situations, we may rely on
social scripts to guide our
responses. Many scripts
proscribe aggression.
Social Scripts: Culturally
constructed directions on
how to act, downloaded
from media as a “file” or
“program” in the mind.
Effects of Social Scripts
Studies: Exposure
to one aggressive
story increases other
forms of aggressive
behavior.
 Watchers of TV crime see the world
as more threatening (needing a
aggressive defense?)
 Randomly assigned to watch
explicit pornography, study
participants suggested shorter
sentences for rapists and accepted
the myth that victims may have
enjoyed the rape.
More Media
Effects on
Aggression


Exposure to violence
in media, especially
in pornography,
seems to increase,
rather than release,
male aggressive
impulses.
Media can portray
minorities, women,
the poor, and others
with less power as
being weak, stupid,
submissive, and less
human, and thus
deserving their
victimhood.
Video Games
and Aggression
 People randomly assigned to play
ultraviolent video games showed
increases in hostility
 People playing a game helping
characters, showed increased reallife helping
 People have acted out violent acts
from video games; People playing
the most violent games tended to
be the most aggressive; but what
came first, aggressiveness or
The Many Origins of Aggression
Stereotypes
What is a stereotype?

A cluster of characteristics associated with all
members of a specific group of people

A belief held by members of one group about
members of another group
Social Categories

In-group—the social group to which we
belong



In-group bias—tendency to make favorable
attributions for members of our in-group
Ethnocentrism is one type of in-group bias
Out-group—the social group to which you
do not belong

Out group homogeneity effect—tendency to
see members of the out-group as more similar
to each other
Social Identity and Cooperation
Social identity theory


states that when you’re assigned to a group, you
automatically think of that group as an in-group for you
Sherif’s Robbers Cave study
 11–12 year old boys at camp


boys were divided into 2 groups and kept separate
from one another
each group took on characteristics of distinct social
group, with leaders, rules, norms of behavior, and
names
Robbers Cave (Sherif)
Leaders proposed series of competitive
interactions which led to 3 changes between
groups and within groups
 within-group solidarity
 negative stereotyping of other group
 hostile between-group interactions
Robbers Cave
Overcoming the strong we/they effect

establishment of superordinate goals


e.g., breakdown in camp water supply
overcoming intergroup strife - research

stereotypes are diluted when people share
individuating information
Breakdown in Water Supply
Social Influence
How behavior is influenced by the social
environment and the presence of other
people
 Conformity
 Obedience
 Helping
Behaviors
Two types of social influence
Normative Social
Influence:
Informational
Social Influence:
Going along with
others in pursuit of
social approval or
belonging (and to
avoid
disapproval/rejection)
Examples: The
Asch conformity
studies; clothing
choices.
Going along with others
because their ideas and
behavior make sense,
the evidence in our
social environment
changes our minds.
Example: Deciding
which side of the road to
drive on.
Conformity


Adopting attitudes or behaviors of others
because of pressure to do so; the pressure
can be real or imagined
2 general reasons for conformity


Informational social influence—other people can
provide useful and crucial information
Normative social influence—desire to be
accepted
as part of a group leads to that group having an
influence
Asch’s Experiments
on Conformity
Previous research had shown people will
conform to others’ judgments more often
when the evidence is ambiguous
Asch’s Experiments
on Conformity




All but 1 in group
was confederate
Seating was rigged
Asked to rate which
line matched a
“standard” line
Confederates were
instructed to pick the
wrong line 12/18
times
1
Standard lines
2
3
Comparison lines
Asch’s Experiments
on Conformity

Results



Asch found that 75% participants conformed to at least
one wrong choice
subjects gave wrong answer (conformed) on 37% of the
critical trials
Why did they conform to clearly wrong
choices?


informational influence?
subjects reported having doubted their own perceptual
abilities which led to their conformance – didn’t report
seeing the lines the way the confederates had
Effects of a Nonconformist



If everyone agrees, you are less likely to
disagree.
If one person disagrees, even if they give the
wrong answer, you are more likely to express
your nonconforming view.
Asch tested this hypothesis


one confederate gave different answer from others
conformity dropped significantly
Obedience

Obedience



compliance of person is
due to perceived
authority of asker
request is perceived as a
command
Milgram interested
in unquestioning
obedience to orders
The Design of Milgram’s
Obedience
Study
One layout of the
study
Ow!
The “Learner”
(working with
researchers)
Please
continue.
(Give the
shock.)
But…
…oka
y.
Shock levels in volts that participants thought they were giving
Slight
(15-60)
Moderat
e (75120)
Strong
(135180)
Very
strong
(195240)
Intense
(250300)
Extreme
intensity
(315360)
Danger:
severe
(375420)
XXX
(435450)
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…”
Obedience
How many people would go to the
highest shock level?
 65% of the subjects went to the end,
even those that protested

Obedience
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
Explanations for
Milgram’s Results
 Abnormal

numerous replications with variety of
groups shows no support
 People

group of subjects?
in general are sadistic?
videotapes of Milgram’s subjects show
extreme distress
Explanations for
Milgram’s Results
Authority of Yale and value of science
 Experimenter self-assurance and
acceptance of responsibility
 Proximity of learner and experimenter
 New situation and no model of how to
behave

Follow-Up Studies to Milgram
Critiques of Milgram
Although 84% later said they were glad
to have participated and fewer than 2%
said they were sorry, there
are still ethical issues
 Do these experiments really help us
understand real-world atrocities?

Social
Facilitation
Why would the presence
of an audience “facilitate”
better performance for
everyone but
newcomers?
Being watched, and
simply being in crowded
conditions, increases
one’s autonomic arousal,
along with increasing
motivation for those who
are confident, and
anxiety for those who are
not confident.

Social Loafing

Ever had a group project, with a
group grade, and had someone in
the group slack off?
If so, you have experienced Social
Loafing: the tendency of people in
a group to show less effort when not
held individually accountable.
Why does social loafing happen?
• When your contribution isn’t rewarded or punished, you
Who will know if
might not care what people think.
I’m not pulling as
• People may not feel their contributions arehard
needed,
thatNo
as I can?
one can tell how
the group will be fine.
hard each of us is
• People may feel free to “cheat” when they pulling
get an
onequal
the
rope.
share of the rewards anyway.
• Note: People in collectivist cultures don’t slack off as
much in groups even when they could. Why?
Loss of self-awareness and selfrestraint.
Examples: Riots, KKK rallies,
concerts, identity-concealed online
bullying.
 Happens when people are in group
situations involving: 1) Anonymity and
2) Arousal.
Deindividuatio
n


In pursuit of social harmony
(and avoidance of open
disagreement), groups will make
decisions without an open
exchange of ideas.
Irony: Group “think” prevents
thinking, prevents a realistic
assessment of options.
Groupthink
Social Influence
The Power of Individuals
Despite all of these forces of
social influence, individuals still
have power:
 Some people resist obeying
and conforming.
 Individuals can start social
movements and social forces,
not just get caught up in
them.
 Groupthink can be prevented
if individuals speak up when
a group decision seems
wrong.
Keys to a Lasting Love Relationship



Equity: Both giving and receiving, sharing responsibilities,
with a sense of partnership
Self-Disclosure: Sharing self in conversation increases
intimacy
Positive Interactions and Support: Offering sympathy,
concern, laughs, hugs
Peacemaking: The 4 C’s




Contact: exposure and
interaction  familiarity 
acceptance  connection
Cooperation: finding shared
goals, not just focusing on
the incompatible goals
Communication: sometimes
with mediators
Conciliation: Gestures that
reduce tension by showing
intension to build alliances
rather than winning conflicts.
Smile. Apologize.
Help or not?
Why Don’t People Always
Help Others in Need?
Diffusion of responsibility


presence of others leads to decreased
help response
we all think someone else will help,
so we don’t
Why Don’t People Always
Help Others in Need?
 Latane

Several scenarios designed to measure
the help response



studies
found that if you think you’re the only one
that can hear or help, you are more likely to
do so
if there are others around, you will diffuse
the responsibility to others
Kitty Genovese incident
Factors that Increase helping






Feel Good, Do Good Effect
Feeling guilty
Seeing others who are willing to help
Perceiving the person as deserving help
Knowing how to help
A personalized Relationship
Factors that Decrease helping




Presence of other people
Being in a big city or very small town
When personal costs for helping outweigh the
benefits
Vague or ambiguous situations

Domestic dispute, “lover’s quarrel”