Download BA Philosophy/BA Sociology PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
COMPLEMENTARY COURSE
For
BA Philosophy/BA Sociology
IV Semester – CUCBCSS 2014 Admission onwards
UNIVERSITY OF CALICU T
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Calicut unive rsity P.O, Malappuram Kerala, India 673 635.
884
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
STUDY MATERIAL
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
COMPLEMENTARY COURSE
For
BA Philosophy/BA Sociology
IV Semester - CUCBCSS
Prepared by:
Sri. Eldhose N.J
Research Scholar
Dept. of Psychology
University of Calicut
Layout: Computer Section, SDE
©
Reserved
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 2
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
CONTENT
PAGES
Module - 2
13-45
Module - 3
46-76
Module - 1
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
5-12
Page 3
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Objectives:
To enable the student to
1.Understand and explain behaviour in the social setting
2.Explain the psychological aspects of various social phenomena
3.Understand the psychological aspect of various social issues in the society
and Nation
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 4
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Module 1
INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Definition, Nature and Scope
Social psychology is the scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, and
behaviours are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others. By this
definition, scientific refers to the empirical method of investigation. The terms thoughts,
feelings, and behaviours include all of the psychological variables that are measurable in a
human being. The statement that others may be imagined or implied suggests that we are
prone to social influence even when no other people are present, such as when watching
television, or following internalized cultural norms.
Social psychology is abroad and complex field that focuses on how the individual’s
behaviour (thoughts, feelings and actions) is influenced by other people. Some of the areas in
Social Psychology include: Social influence, Social cognition, Social perception, Attitudes,
Attribution, Prejudice, Stereotypes and discrimination, Aggression, Group processes,
Altruism, Interpersonal attraction, pro social behaviour among others. Social psychology as a
science seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behaviour and thought in
social situations. Social psychologists focus on the factors that help shape social behaviour
and thought of individuals. They are interested in the actions, feelings, beliefs, values,
memories, ideas about other people, the interpretation of behaviour as observed in social
settings.
Social psychologists typically explain human behaviour as a result of the interaction
of mental states and immediate social situations. In Kurt Lewin's conceptual formula,
behaviour can be viewed as a function of the person in the environment, B = f (P, E). In
general, social psychologists have a preference for laboratory based, empirical findings.
Social psychology theories tend to be specific and focused, rather than global and general.
Social psychology is an interdisciplinary domain that bridges the gap between psychology
and sociology. During the years immediately following World War II, there was frequent
collaboration between psychologists and sociologists. However, the two disciplines have
become increasingly specialized and isolated from each other in recent years, with
sociologists focusing on "macro variables" (e.g. social structure) to a much greater extent.
Nevertheless, sociological approaches to social psychology remain an important counterpart
to psychological research in this area. In addition to the split between psychology and
sociology, there has been a somewhat less pronounced difference in emphasis between
American social psychologists and European social psychologists.
As a broad generalization, American researchers traditionally have focused more on
the individual, whereas Europeans have paid more attention to group level phenomena.
History
The discipline of social psychology began in the United States at the dawn of the 20th
century. The first published study in this area was an experiment in 1898 by Norman Triplett
on the phenomenon of social facilitation. During the 1930s, many Gestalt psychologists, most
notably Kurt Lewin, fled to the United States from Nazi Germany. They were instrumental in
developing the field as something separate from the behavioural and psychoanalytic schools
that were dominant during that time, and social psychology has always maintained the legacy
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 5
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
of their interests in perception and cognition. Attitudes and small group phenomena were the
most commonly studied topics in this era.
During WWII, social psychologists studied persuasion and propaganda for the U.S.
military. After the war, researchers became interested in a variety of social problems,
including gender issues and racial prejudice. Most notable, revealing, and contentious of
them all were the Stanley Milgram shock experiments on obedience to authority. In the
sixties, there was growing interest in new topics, such as cognitive dissonance, bystander
intervention, and aggression. By the 1970s, however, social psychology in America had
reached a crisis. There was heated debate over the ethics of laboratory experimentation,
whether or not attitudes really predicted behaviour, and how much science could be done in a
cultural context (see Gergen, 1973). This was also the time when a radical situationist
approach challenged the relevance of self and personality in psychology.
Social psychology reached maturity in both theory and method during the 1980s and
1990s. Careful ethical standards now regulate research, and greater pluralism and
multiculturalism perspectives have emerged. Modern researchers are interested in a many
phenomenon, but attribution, social cognition, and the self-concept are perhaps the greatest
areas of growth in recent years. Social psychologists have also maintained their applied
interests with contributions in health and environmental psychology, as well as the
psychology of the legal system.
ATTITUDE
Definition
An attitude cannot be recorded directly. We cannot view someone’s tendency to like
something in the way we can see physical attributes, such as eye colour or running speed.
Another difficulty is that attitudes can be expressed through many behaviours. For e xample, a
person who likes music might listen to it all the time, buy countless CDs, attend numerous
music concerts, and buy several magazines about music. How does a researcher go from
information about such a variety of behaviours to an estimate of the person’s fundamental
attitude towards music? One general approach is to examine one or more specific behaviours
that are seen as directly reflecting attitude. For example, a person who has a negative attitude
towards a particular immigrant group is likely to seek more physical distance from members
of that group, avoid eye contact with them, show unpleasant facial expressions, and so on.
Another general approach employs self-report questionnaires, which ask participants to
express their attitude towards the particular object. The most common version simply asks
respondents to indicate their attitudes towards a named object using semantic-differential
scales. So people might be asked to rate their attitude towards immigrants using a scale from
−3 (extremely bad) to +3 (extremely good). Typically, though, people rate their attitude using
several different scales, each labelled by different adjective pairs (negative/positive,
worthless/valuable, unfavourable/ favourable). Responses to the scales are then averaged to
form an attitude score for each participant. Of course, self-report measures can be affected by
people’s desire to state socially desirable attitudes. So while our respondents above may
reveal negative attitudes towards immigrants in their behaviour, their self-reports may appear
more positive because they are reluctant to seem prejudiced.
Contemporary research therefore frequently uses non-self-report measures in cases
like this – i.e. when people’s ability to rate their attitudes accurately is questionable. Despite
this weakness, self-report measures have predicted a variety of relevant behaviours in past
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 6
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
research, which suggests that we are at least somewhat accurate in reporting our own
attitudes. Other measures elicit attitudes without relying on self-reports and without relying
on overt behaviours towards the attitude object. For example, a common approach is to
present the names of objects that people might like or dislike on a computer screen. Then the
computer presents an adjective (e.g. terrible, pleasant) and respondents are asked to decide
whether it means a good thing or bad thing. This question is easy to answer, and most people
can answer correctly every time. Nonetheless, responses to adjectives with a positive
meaning (e.g. delightful) tend to be faster after people have seen something they like than
after seeing something they do not like, whereas responses to adjectives with a negative
connotation (e.g. awful) tend to be slower after people have seen something they like than
after seeing something they dislike. By contrasting the speed of responses to the positive and
negative adjectives, researchers can obtain a measure of attitude that predicts behaviour
towards an attitude object (Fazio et al., 1995).
THE THREE COMPONENTS OF ATTITUDE
An important feature of attitudes is their ability to sum up several types of
psychological information. Consider an American who favours US membership in a global
pact to reduce air pollution. Her positive attitude towards the pact may summarize relevant
cognitions, emotions and behaviours. She may:



believe that the pact will be good for the environment (cognition);
feel excited when she hears plans for the pact (emotion); and
sign a petition supporting the pact (behaviour).
The three-component model of attitudes.
1. Effects of beliefs
It could be argued that persuasive messages such as advertisements often change
attitudes by changing people’s beliefs about the object of the message. For example, antismoking ads attempt to change people’s beliefs about the consequences of smoking, and
those beliefs should in turn influence their attitude towards smoking. Consider a simple
experiment in which Canadian participants received a booklet describing a study of a new
immigrant group to Canada (Maio, Esses& Bell, 1994). The information in the booklet was
manipulated to create positive and/or negative beliefs about the group. For example, some
participants read that the immigrants scored above average on desirable personality traits (e.g.
hardworking, honest), whereas other participants read that the group members scored below
average on these traits. After reading the information, participants rated their attitudes
towards the group. Not surprisingly, the results indicated that those who received positive
information indicated more favourable attitudes towards the immigrant group than those who
received negative information. This simple demonstration is important from a practical
perspective, because it demonstrates how even second-hand information about others can
have a powerful effect on our attitudes towards them. When prejudice has arisen largely from
indirect information, interventions encourage direct, positive interactions to change beliefs
and reduce the prejudice.
2. Effects of feelings
If you look carefully at advertisements, you will find that many give very little
information about the objects they are promoting. For example, an advertisement for a
Citroen car shows supermodel Claudia Schiffer smiling and undressing on her way to the car,
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 7
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
while upbeat music plays in the background. Rather than focusing on concrete information
(e.g. performance, fuel economy), ads like this work by linking the product with positive
feelings.
3. Effects of behaviour
Initiation rituals have often been prerequisites for acceptance into social groups, such
as military squads and college fraternities and sororities. Would-be new members may be
asked to perform embarrassing acts, such as streaking nude at a public event or dressing in a
strange costume during classes. Why do new recruits not leave a group after enduring such
ordeals? One possible explanation is that the behaviour of submission to group rules leads to
more positive attitudes towards the group. In other words, the new recruit’s behaviour affects
his attitudes. For many decades, the general effect of behaviour on attitudes has captured a
great deal of interest. Researchers first began to notice an interesting effect arising from role playing. For example, participants assigned to play the role of a person diagnosed with
terminal lung cancer later reported more negative attitudes towards smoking than those who
had listened to an audiotape of the roleplay (Janis & Mann, 1965). Similarly, people assigned
to debate a particular position on an issue such as legalized abortion subsequently express a
more favourable attitude towards the position they have been required to advocate (e.g. Janis
& King, 1954). People who merely listen to the participants’ arguments do not show so much
attitude change. Something about the role-playing behaviour drives the change. What if the
role-playing task explicitly requires counter-attitudinal advocacy – presenting an attitude or
opinion that opposes the person’s previous attitude? Suppose university students are asked to
write an essay arguing for increased tuition fees – a position that obviously contradicts most
students’ feelings on this issue. Amazingly, they still tend to change their attitudes towards
the position they have advocated (see Cooper & Fazio, 1984; Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999).
Another interesting finding is that this attitude change is more likely when participants are
given only a small incentive to argue the counter attitudinal position than when they are given
a large incentive. Several theories help to explain this effect (e.g. Schlenker, 1982; Steele,
1988), but two are particularly prominent. On the one hand, cognitive dissonance theory
suggests that a small incentive makes people feel guilt or tension from having acted,
behaviourally, against their original attitude without sufficient reason. To reduce their
discomfort, they change their attitude (Festinger, 1957). This idea has also been used to
explain the effects of initiation rituals. On the other hand, self-perception theory suggests that
small incentives cause people to assume that their attitude must actually match the position
they have advocated (Bem, 1972), because they can see no external reasons why they
performed the behaviour. Current evidence suggests that both theories have some validity.
Apparently, cognitive dissonance processes may occur when people perform a behaviour that
strongly contradicts their initial attitude (like the tuition fees example), whereas selfperception processes may occur when people perform a behaviour that is not so strongly
contradictory (Fazio, Zanna& Cooper, 1977).
How Do Attitudes Influence Behaviour?
Ever since the beginning of attitude research, investigators have puzzled over the
relation between attitudes and behaviour. Why do people sometimes say they like something
and then act as if they do not? Are these instances much less frequent than instances where
the attitude and behaviour match perfectly?
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 8
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Measuring the attitude–behaviour link
Researchers were intrigued by the results of some early research that revealed very
weak relations between attitudes and behaviour. In one study (LaPiere, 1934), a researcher
and a young Chinese couple travelled around the Western portion of the US, visiting 250
restaurants, inns and hotels. Despite widespread American prejudice against Chinese people
at that time, the researcher and his visitors were refused service at only one of the
establishments. Yet, when he later wrote to these establishments requesting permission to
visit with ‘a young Chinese gentleman and his wife’, 92 per cent refused permission! These
refusals are often interpreted as indicators of negative attitudes towards Chinese people.
Viewed this way, they provide some of the earliest evidence that people’s behaviours (in this
case, accepting the Chinese couple) can fail to match their attitudes towards the behaviour
(i.e. their desire to refuse permission). This raised some doubts about the ability of attitudes
to predict behaviours. There were many methodological limitations to LaPiere’s study,
however (Campbell, 1963). For example: the attitude and behaviour were measured at
different times and locations; n the attitude measure itself was, at best, indirect (LaPiere did
not ask the restaurant owners to complete an attitude scale); n the young couple may have
looked more pleasant than the proprietors had imagined; n the proprietors may have followed
the norm of hospitality to guests once they entered the restaurant; and n the situation in which
behaviour was measured may simply have made it too difficult for most pro prietors to refuse
the Chinese couple, because of the embarrassing scene that might ensue.
Subsequent studies used more stringent procedures (see Wicker, 1969). Using a
correlational technique, these studies tested whether people with positive attitudes towards a
particular object exhibit more favourable behaviour towards the object than do people with
negative attitudes towards the object. Even so, until 1962, researchers still found only weak
relations between attitudes and behaviour. The consistent failure to find strong attitude–
behaviour correlations led researchers to search for explanations. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)
pointed out that past research often failed to measure a behaviour that directly corresponded
to the attitude being measured. For example, suppose we measure the relation between (a)
attitudes towards protecting the environment and (b) using a recycling facility in a particular
week. Even if someone is a strong environmentalist, there are many reasons why they might
fail to recycle in a particular week (lack of a nearby facility, lack of time to sort recyclables,
and so on). The problem is that the measured behaviour (recycling in a particular week) is
very specific, whereas the attitude object (protecting the environment) is much more general.
To better measure ‘general’ behaviour, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) proposed the multiple act
criterion, which involves measuring a large number of behaviours that are relevant to the
general attitude being studied. For example, to measure pro-environment behaviour, we could
measure numerous pro-environment behaviours, including recycling across several weeks,
willingness to sign pro-environment petitions and tendency to pick up litter. This would give
us a more precise and reliable measure of behaviour. Weigel and Newman (1976) did just this
and found much stronger attitude–behaviour relations by taking an average measure of all of
the behaviours, rather than any single behaviour.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 9
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Predicting behaviour
Behaviour is normally influenced by more than attitudes alone. For instance, as we
discussed previously, the behaviour of people towards the Chinese couple in LaPiere’s study
would also have been influenced by social norms – the socially prescribed ways of behaving
in a situation (Campbell, 1963). Ajzen (1991) developed a model of attitude–behaviour
relations that recognized the impact of social norms. According to this theory of planned
behaviour (figure 17.7), actual behaviour is influenced by behavioural intentions – intentions
to perform or not to perform the behaviour (see also chapter 19). These intentions, in turn, are
influenced by: the attitude towards the behaviour – the individual’s evaluations of the positive
and negative consequences of performing the behaviour; n the subjective norms regarding the
behaviour – the individual’s desire to behave in the same way as people who are important to
him think he should behave; and n perceived control over performance of the behaviour – the
extent to which the individual believes he can control whether he performs the behaviour.
According to the theory, when attitudes and subjective norms support a target
behaviour and perceived control over the performance of the behaviour is high, intentions to
perform the behaviour should be stronger. People who form strong intentions should be more
likely to perform the behaviour. Abundant research has supported these predictions (see
Conner & Armitage, 1998), while also making it clear that the theory neglects several
additional important predictors of behaviour – such as a sense of moral obligation to perform
the target behaviour (Schwartz, 1977) and the pattern of the individual’s past behaviour in
similar situations (Ouellette & Wood, 1998).
Accessible vs. inaccessible attitudes
According to Fazio (1990), attitudes often influence behaviour through a spontaneous
process. Effects of attitudes can occur quickly, but only for people whose attitude is
accessible (easy to retrieve). When attitudes are accessible, they come to mind instantly when
we see the attitude object. The attitude then influences how we behave towards the object. If
the attitude is less accessible, it doesn’t come to mind, and so it doesn’t influence our
behaviour. For example, suppose you are walking by an ice cream seller. You may
spontaneously recall your passion for ice cream, and this attitude may motivate a decision to
buy some. But if you don’t spontaneously recall your attitude (because it is inaccessible –
perhaps you are distracted by a more pressing thought at the time you walk past the ice cream
seller), it will lie dormant and not elicit the decision to buy. Indeed, there’s a great deal of
evidence that attitudes do exert a stronger influence on behaviour when they are accessible
than when they are diffi cult to retrieve (Fazio, 2000)
FORMING AND CHANGING ATTITUDES
Incentive for change
To understand how attitudes can be changed, it is first important to understand attitude
functions – the psychological needs that attitudes fulfil (Maio& Olson, 2000). Early theories
proposed a number of important attitude functions (table 17.1). For example, people may
have a positive attitude towards objects that help them become popular among people they
like, but not objects that make them estranged from those people. This is the social
adjustment function, which provides the basis for the entire fashion industry: people tend to
like clothing that is popular among people they like. In the earliest model of attitude change,
Hovland, Janis and Kelley (1953) suggested that persuasive messages change people’s
attitudes when they highlight some incentive for this change. For example, an advertisement
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 10
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
might describe the utilitarian benefits of buying a particular model of car (e.g. good fuel
economy) or the social-adjustment benefits (e.g. a sporty look). The incentives must seem
important if the message recipients are to change their attitude. Hovland et al.’s theory also
suggests that processing of any message must occur in stages if it is to be successful. The
intended audience must:
1. pay attention to the message,
2. comprehend the message, and
3. accept the message’s conclusions.
McGuire (1969) extended this theory further. According to his model, a message will
elicit the desired behaviour only if it succeeds at six stages (figure 17.8). People must:
1. encounter the message (presentation stage);
2. attend to it (attention stage);
3. understand it (comprehension stage);
4. change their attitude (yielding stage);
5. remember their new attitude at a later time (retention stage); and
6. the new attitude must influence their behaviour (behaviour stage).
Interestingly, even if the odds of passing each stage are quite good, the chances of
completing all the stages can be low. For example, we might optimistically assume that a
Nike running shoe ad has an 80 per cent chance of success at each stage. If this were the case,
the laws of probability indicate that the odds of successfully completing all of the stages
would be only 0.26 (0.8 × 0.8 × 0.8 × 0.8 × 0.8 × 0.8). In other words, the ad would have a 26
per cent chance of getting someone to buy the running shoes. In reality, the odds of
completion of each stage (especially yielding and behaviour) may be far lower, creating even
lower chances of success (possibly less than 1 per cent). For this reason, modern marketing
initiatives take steps to compel completion of each stage, where this is possible. So
advertisers will present the message many times, make it attention-grabbing and memorable,
and make the message content as powerful as they can.
Motivation and ability
Two newer models of persuasion, the ‘elaboration likelihood model’ (Petty
&Cacioppo, 1986) and the ‘heuristic–systematic model’ (Chaiken, Liberman&Eagly, 1989),
predict that the effects of persuasive messages depend on people’s motivation and ability to
think carefully about them. If someone is highly motivated and able to process a persuasive
message, they should be heavilyinfluenced by the strength of the arguments in the message.
But if they are less motivated or able to process the message, then they should be strongly
affected by simple cues within the message, such as the presenter’s attractiveness or
expertise. Many variables influence motivation and ability. Motivation is high when the
message is relevant to personal goals and there is a fear of being wrong. Ability is high when
people are not distracted and when they possess high cognitive skills. Although all of these
variables have been studied in connection with both models of persuasion, most of this
research has focused on the personal relevance of the message. For example, Petty et al.
(1983) found that the attractiveness of the spokesperson presenting a message influences
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 11
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
attitudes when the issue is not personally relevant, but has no effect when the issue is
personally relevant. In contrast, the strength of the argument within the message in fluences
attitudes when the issue is personally relevant, but not when the issue is not personally
relevant. These findings support the predictions of the elaboration likelihood model and the
heuristic–systematic model. Although many experiments have revealed similar effects, the
heuristic–systematic model suggests that high personal relevance should not always lead to
the lower use of cues such as the presenter’s attributes. For example, when a personally
relevant message contains ambiguous arguments (i.e. it has strengths and weaknesses),
people may be more persuaded by a message from an expert source than from an inexpert
source (Chaiken&Maheswaran, 1994). According to this model, high personal relevance
causes people to use environmental cues when the message arguments themselves provide no
clear conclusions. This prediction has received some experimental support
(Chaiken&Maheswaran, 1994).
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 12
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Module 2
Social perception-Nonverbal communication,Attribution,Impression formation and
impression management.
What is social perception?
By social perception, we mean those processes whereby an individual makes sense of
and interprets the nature of the other people involved in the conversation, and the nature of
the setting in which they find themselves. Ifthat sounds rather a mouthful then we can easily
illustrate the importance of social perception with a few examples:
In one very famous experiment, Harold Kelley provided a group of university
students with a short written description of a visiting lecturer just before he lectured to them
for the first time. Unbeknown to the students, two forms of the description were distributed at
random. The only difference between the two forms was that the phrase "very warm" was
used to describe the lecturer on one version, and the phrase "rather cold" was used on the
other. So each student read a description of Mr X like this:
Mr X is a graduate student in the Department of Economics and Social Science here
at M.I.T. He has had three semesters of teaching experience in psychology at another college.
This is his first semester teaching Ec.70. He is 26 years old, a veteran, and married. People
who know him consider him to be a rather cold (or, "very warm") person, industrious,
critical, practical, and determined. After the class (which included a discussion session lasting
about 20 minutes), Kelley asked the students to rate the lecturer. There were marked
differences in these ratings depending on which prior description the student had read.
"Warm" students saw the lecturer as successful, popular, happy, humorous etc. "Cold"
students saw the lecturer as stingy, unsuccessful, unpopular and unhappy. There was also a
marked difference in class participation. Fifty-six percent of the "warm" students took part in
the discussion; only 32 per cent of the "cold" students did so.
This experiment suggests that there is some truth in the statement that we see what we
expect to see. The students gained their initial impression from the written description and
seemed to stick to it regardless of the evidence available to them. They also behaved in
accordance with what they thought was true rather than actual events. This behaviour then
reinforced their initial impression. If you participate in a discussion then you're liable to see
the leader more positively than if you sit aloof simply because you've received some
reactions from him. This is an example of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" - someone is "labelled"
in a particular way; this makes other people expect that person to behave in specific ways;
these other people then behave to the labelled person on the basis of their expectations; the
person reacts and probably lives up to the expectations.
An example may make this clearer.
Suppose a new pupil arrives at a school after a rumour that he is a "trouble-maker".
The other pupils and teachers will expect him to live up to this reputation and may well greet
him in a suspicious or hostile way. The newcomer reacts to what he see as a hostile welcome,
possibly by retaliating in a hostile way, and the "prophecy" has come true. Of course, labels
can also be positive but the process will be the same. There is some evidence that selffulfilling prophecies can have long-term effects. Unfortunately Kelley's experiment only
looked at a fairly short event. The class only lasted twenty minutes. What would have
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 13
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
happened to the students' perceptions if the class had lasted longer, or if they had seen the
lecturer again on a number of occasions?
The spectators' example
Another classic experiment within social psychology studied the perceptions of
spectators after a particularly rough game of American football between Dartmouth and
Princeton. The investigators asked spectators who was responsible for the rough play. If you
have ever been involved inteam sports you will probably not be surprised to learn that the
supporters' perceptions were consistently different. For example, only 36 per cent of the
Dartmouth students thought that their team had started the rough play whereas 86 per cent of
the Princeton students thought that the Dartmouth team had.
Social psychology traditionally has been defined as the study of the ways in which
people affect, and are affected by, others. Communication is one of the primary means by
whichpeople affect one another, and, in light of this, one might expect the study of
communication to be a core topic of social psychology, but historically that has not been the
case. No doubt there are many reasons. Among them is the fact that communication is a
complex and multidisciplinary concept, and, across the several disciplines that use the term,
there is no consensus on exactly how it should be defined. It is an important theoretical
construct in such otherwise dissimilar fields as cell biology, computer science, ethology,
linguistics, electrical engineering, sociology, anthropology, genetics, philosophy, semiotics,
and literary theory. And although there is a core of meaning common to the way the term is
used in these disciplines, the particularities differ enormously. What cell biologists call
communication bears little resemblance to what anthropologists study under the same rubric.
A concept used in so many different ways runs the risk of becoming an amorphous catch-all
term lacking precise meaning, and that already may have happened to communication. As the
sociologist Thomas Luckmannhas observed, "Communication has come to mean all things to
all men" (Luckmann, 1993, p.68).
Elements of nonverbal communication



Paralanguage: Besides the actual words, the way a person says something can convey
a lot of information. Such elements of paralanguage like inflection, pitch, emphasis
placed, pauses and speed can add volumes of meaning to a message. Even elements
like laughing and sighing can help in interpreting the actual meaning of a verbal
message, as they provide information about the emotional context.
Body language: One of the most important elements of body language is facial
gestures, most of which are universally recognized. People in different cultures
demonstrate similar facial expressions in similar situations, and can recognize the
underlying emotion in faces from other cultures. Eye-contact is another important
factor that provides information about the emotional state of a person. Posture and
gestures as well as movement also convey a lot of information. The way a person
stands, holds themselves in different situations and the way they walk can convey
information about mood and confidence.
Interpersonal space: Proxemics is the study of how people use space to communicate.
Typically, people who want to express agreement or intimacy will stand closer, lean
in and basically reduce the space between themselves and the receiver of the
communication. On the other hand, when people wish to demonstrate disagreement
and social distance will also add physical distance to their interaction. Even when
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 14
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

people are is a public space like a bus, and cannot control the physical space between
themselves and others, they try to control the social distance by averting their gaze or
looking at a neutral object.
Personal effects: People use clothing and accessories to not only manage impressions,
but also to send a message about who they are. The way a person dresses and the
objects they carry with them are often used to convey messages about who they are
and how they perceive themselves to others.
Nonverbal behavior as nonverbal communication
Much of what social psychologists think about nonverbal behaviour derives from a
proposal made more than a century ago by Charles Darwin. In The expression of the
emotions in man and animals(Darwin,1872), he posed the question: Why do our facial
expressions of emotions take the particular formsthey do? Why do we wrinkle our nose when
we are disgusted, bare our teethand narrow our eyes when enraged, and stare wide-eyed when
we are transfixed by fear? Darwin's answer was that we do these things primarily because
they are vestiges of serviceable associated habits - behaviours that earlier in our evolutionary
history had specific and direct functions. For a species that attacked by biting, baring the
teeth was a necessary prelude to an assault; wrinkling the nose reduced the inhalation of foul
odors; and so forth. But if facial expressions reflect formerly functional behaviors, why have
they persisted when they no longer serve their original purposes? Why do people bare their
teeth when they are angry, despite the fact that biting is not part of their aggressive
repertoire? Why do they wrinkle their noses when their disgust is engendered by an odorless
picture?
According to Darwin's intellectual heirs, the behavioural ethologists (e.g., Hinde,
1972; Tinbergen, 1952), humans do these things because over the course of their evolutionary
history such behaviors have acquired communicative value: they provide others with external
evidence of an individual's internal state. The utility of such information generated
evolutionary pressure to select sign behaviors, thereby schematizing them and, in Tinbergen's
phrase, "emancipating them" from their original biological function.1
Noncommunicative functions of nonverbal behaviours
So pervasive has been social psychologists' preoccupation with the communicative or
expressive aspects of nonverbal behaviours that the terms nonverbal behaviour and nonverbal
communication have tended to be used interchangeably. Recently, however, it has been
suggested that this communicative focus has led social psychologists to overlook other
functions such behaviours serve. For example, Zajonc contends that psychologists have been
too quick to accept the idea that facial expression are primarily expressive behaviours.
According to his "vascular theory of emotional efference" (Zajonc, 1985; Zajonc, Murphy,
&Inglehart, 1989) , the actions of the facial musculature that produce facial expressions of
emotions serve to restrict venous flow, thereby impeding or facilitating the cooling of
cerebral blood as it enters the brain. The resulting variations in cerebral temperature, Zajonc
hypothesizes, promote or inhibit the release of emotion-linked neurotransmitters, which, in
turn, affect subjective emotional experience. From this perspective, facial expressions do
convey information about the individual's emotional state, but they do so as an indirect
consequence of their primary, noncommunicative function.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 15
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
An analogous argument has been made for the role of gaze direction in social
interaction. As people speak, their gaze periodically fluctuates toward andaway from their
conversational partner. Some investigators have interpretedgaze directed at a conversational
partner as an expression of intimacy or closeness (cf., Argyle & Cook, 1976; Exline, 1972;
Exline, Gray, &Schuette, 1985; Russo, 1975). However, Butterworth (1978) argues that gaze
direction is affected by two complex tasks speakers must manage concurrently: planning
speech, and monitoring the listener for visible indications of comprehension, onfusion,
agreement, interest, etc. (Brunner, 1979; Duncan, Brunner, & Fiske, 1979). When the
cognitive demands of speech planning are great, Butterwort argues, speakers avert gaze to
reduce visual information input, and, when those demands moderate, they redirect their gaze
toward the listener, especially at places where feedback would be useful. Studies of the points
in the speech stream at which changes in gaze direction occur, and of the effects of restricting
changes in gaze direction (Beattie, 1978; Beattie, 1981; Cegala, Alexander, Sokuvitz, 1979),
tend to support Butterworth's conjecture.
Interpersonal and intrapersonal functions of nonverbal behaviours
Of course, nonverbal behaviours can serve multiple functions. Facial expression may
play a role in affective experience-by modulating vascular blood flow as Zajonc has proposed
or through facial feedback as has been suggested by Tomkins and others (Tomkins &
McCarter, 1964)-and at the same time convey information about the expressor's emotional
state. Such communicative effects could involve two rather different mechanisms. In the first
place, many nonverbal behaviours are to some extent under the individual's control, and can
be produced voluntarily. For example, although a smile may be a normal accompaniment of
an affectively positive internal state, it can at least to some degree be produced at will. Social
norms, called "display rules," dictate that one exhibit at least a moderately pleased expression
on certain social occasions. For example, the recent book edited by Feldman andRimé (1991)
reviewing research in this area is titled Fundamentals of Nonverbal Behaviour, despite the
fact that all of the nonverbal behaviours are discussed in terms of the role they play in
communication (see Krauss(1993) .
Kraut (1979) found that the attention of others greatly potentiates smiling in situations
that can be expected to induce a positive internal state. In the second place, nonverbal
behaviours that serve noncommunicative functions can provide information about the
noncommunicative functions they serve. For example, ifButterworth is correct about the
reason speakers avert gaze, an excessive amount of gaze aversion may lead a listener to infer
that the speaker is having difficulty formulating the message. Conversely, the failure to avert
gaze atcertain junctures, combined with speech that is overly fluent, may lead anobserver to
infer that the utterance is not spontaneous. Viewed in this fashion, we can distinguish
between interpersonal and intrapersonal functions that nonverbal behaviours serve. The
interpersonal functions involve information such behaviours convey to others, regardless of
whether they are employed intentionally (like the facial emblem) or serve as the basis of an
inference the listener makes about the speaker (like dysfluency). The intrapersonal functions
involve noncommunative purposes the behavioursserve. The premise of this chapter is that
the primary function of conversational hand gestures (unplanned, articulate hand movements
that accompany spontaneous speech) is not communicative, but rather to aid in the
formulation of speech. It is our contention that the information they convey to an addressee is
largely derivative from this primary function.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 16
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
GESTURES AS NONVERBAL BEHAVIORS
A typology of gestures
All hand gestures are hand movements, but not all hand movements aregestures, and
it is useful to draw some distinctions among the types of hanmovements people make.
Although gestural typologies abound in theliterature, there is little agreement among
researchers about the sorts ofdistinctions that are necessary or useful. Following a suggestion
by Kendon(1983), we have found it helpful to think of the different types of handmovements
that accompany speech as arranged on a continuum oflexicalization—the extent to whch they
are "word-like."
Adapters
At the low lexicalization end of the continuum are hand movements that tend not to be
considered gestures. They consist of manipulations either of the person or of some object
(e.g., clothing, pencils, eye glasses)-the kinds ofscratching, fidgeting, rubbing, tapping, and
touching that speakers often do with their hands. Such behaviors are most frequently referred
to as adapters (Efron, 1941/1972; Ekman & Friesen, 1969b; Ekman & Friesen, 1972) . Other
terms that have been used are expressive movements (Reuschert, 1909) , body-focused
movements (Freedman & Hoffman, 1967) , self-touching gestures (Kimura, 1976) ,
manipulative gestures(Edelman &Hampson, 1979) , self-manipulators (Rosenfeld 1966, and
contact acts(Bull & Connelly, 1985) . Adapters are not gestures as that term is usually
understood. They are not perceived as communicativelintended, nor are they perceived to be
meaningfully related to the speech theyaccompany, although they may serve as the basis for
dispositional inferences (e.g., that the speaker is nervous, uncomfortable, bored, etc.). It has
been suggested that adapters may reveal unconscious thoughts or feelings (Mahl, 1956; Mahl,
1968) , or thoughts and feelings that the speaker is trying consciously to conceal (Ekman &
Friesen, 1969a; Ekman & Friesen, 1974) , but little systematic research has been directed to
this issue.
Symbolic gestures
At the opposite end of the lexicalization continuum are gestural signs-hand
configurations and movements with specific, conventionalized meanings-that we will call
symbolic gestures (Ricci Bitti&Poggi, 1991). Other terms that have been used are emblems
(Efron, 1941/1972), autonomous gestures(Kendon, 1983), conventionalized signs(Reuschert,
1909), formal pantomimic gestures (Wiener, Devoe, Rubinow, & Geller, 1972), expressive
gestures (Zinober&Martlew, 1985), and semiotic gestures (Barakat, 1973). Familiar symbolic
gestures include the "raised fist," "bye-bye," "thumbs-up," and the extended middle finger
sometimes called "flipping the bird." In contrast to adapters, symbolic gestures are used
intentionally and serve a clear communicative function. Every culture has a set of symbolic
gestures familiar to most of its adult members, and very similar gestures may have different
meanings in different cultures (Ekman, 1976) Subcultural and occupational groups also may
have special symbolic gesture that are not widely known outside the group. Although
symbolic gestures often are used in the absence of speech, they occasionally accompany
speech, either echoing a spoken word or phrase or substituting for something that was not
said.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 17
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Conversational gestures
The properties of the hand movements that fall at the two extremes of thecontinuum
are relatively uncontroversial. However there is considerabledisagreement about movements
that occupy the middle part of the lexicalizationcontinuum, movements that are neither as
word-like as symbolic gestures nor asdevoid of meaning as adapters. We refer to this
heterogeneous set of handmovements as conversational gestures. They also have been called
illustrators(Ekman & Friesen, 1969b; Ekman & Friesen, 1972, gesticulations (Kendon,
1980;Kendon, 1983) , and signifying signs (Reuschert, 1909) . Conversational gesturesare
hand movements that accompany speech, and seem related to the speechthey accompany.
This apparent relatedness is manifest in three ways: First,unlike symbolic gestures,
conversational gestures don't occur in the absence ofspeech, and in conversation are made
only by the person who is speaking.Second, conversational gestures are temporally
coordinated with speech. Andthird, unlike adapters, at least some conversational gestures
seem related in formto the semantic content of the speech they accompany.
Different types of conversational gestures can be distinguished, and a variety of
classification schemes have been proposed (Ekman & Friesen, 1972;Feyereisen&deLannoy,
1991; Hadar, 1989a; McNeill, 1985). We find it useful to distinguish between two major
types that differ importantly in form and, we believe, in function.
Motor movements
One type of conversational gesture consists of simple, repetitive, rhythmicmovements,
that bear no obvious relation to the semantic content of the accompanying speech
(Feyereisen, Van de Wiele, & Dubois, 1988) . Typically the hand shape remains fixed during
the gesture, which may be repeated several times. We will follow Hadar (1989a;
Hadar&Yadlin-Gedassy, 1994) in referring to such gestures as motor movements; they also
have been called “batons” (Efron, 1941/1972; Ekman & Friesen, 1972 and “beats” (Kendon,
1983; McNeill, 1987). Motor movements are reported to be coordinated with the speech
prosody and to fall on stressed syllables (Bull & Connelly, 1985; but see McClave, 1994)
,although the synchrony is far from perfect.
Lexical movements
The other main category of conversational gesture consists of handmovements that
vary considerably in length, are nonrepetitive, complex and changing in form, and, to a naive
observer at least, appear related to the semantic content of the speech they accompany.
Importance of Nonverbal communication
Often, people choose not to provide a lot of information through verbal
communication; and on occasion, this may be done with the express purpose of misinforming someone. Being able to read nonverbal communication can help identify the true
intent of an individual, as it is extremely difficult to control all the cues simultaneously while
continuing to deliver a false message. People don’t need to be trained to read nonverbal cues.
Most people will pay attention to and process the information they contain without even
realizing it. Sometimes people are aware of what they read from nonverbal communication,
particularly in important situations. A recent study found that patients will pay attention to
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 18
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
doctors’ nonverbal cues like expressions, tone of voice and eye contact. Some more
perceptive patients also attend to other cues like distance, touch, and posture; and these cues
are then used in evaluating the value of the doctor’s message as well as the doctor
him/herself. Thus, if the doctor is leaning in and smiling while looking into the patients eyes,
the patient is more likely to trust the doctor.
ATTRIBUTION
Early Theories of Attribution
We are all interested in understanding our own behaviour and the behaviours
of others as we interact. Knowing the reasons why we act the way we do or say
what we say will help us understand behaviour better. The process of attribution is the key
to explaining the cause of events or behaviours. In attribution, we try to give reasons,
explain or make judgment about the causes of events or behaviours. These reasons
are mostly attributed to either external or internal causes. We will look at the various theories
that explain the causes of our behaviour and the behaviours of others.
Jones and Davis Correspondent Inferences theory (CIT).
This theory suggests that the target of any effective attribution is the ability to make
inferences that correspond or are in line with the behaviour, that is, the intention of the
behaviour and the underlying disposition of the actor. Both the behaviour and the
disposition must be seen and recognized as similar. The behaviour should be
made to occur by the actor with no external influence or instructions to do so; this
will enable one to make a corresponding inference.
How can we make Inferences?
1. Analyzing uncommon effects
We can infer that intended behaviour agrees with some underlying
disposition by analysing uncommon effects. This means looking at what is distinct about
the effect of the choice made. Once we have many options and decide on one, then we
can co mparethe consequences of the chosen option to the consequences of
the other option not chosen. Then what is common about the effect of the choice
becomes very important. If there are fewer differences between these comparisons, then
we can infer dispositions with confidence. Also the more negative consequences with the
chosen option, the more likely we are to attach some importance to the distinctive
consequences.
2. We can also look at the actor’s choice. Was this choice or behaviour influenced by
situational or internal (free will) factors?
3. We can also make inferences by concentrating on the socialdesirability of the
behaviour. Once there is a deviation from what isdesired or accepted, this
behaviour catches our attention and hastens our impression formation because of the
distinctiveness of the behaviour. We are likely not going to engage in undesirable
behaviour that will put us in bad standing with others.
4. We could infer our behaviour based on the desirability of the behaviour being
observed.
The use of Roles – these are well defined roles that people tend to conform to, if done
well their underlying dispositions might not be evident, but if these roles are broken and the
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 19
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
actor deviates from them, it is most likely that the actor’s underlying disposition
will be revealed and corresponding inferences about his behaviour will be made.
Prior expectations based on past experiences with the actor could also
help us to decide if present behaviour is in line with other behaviours of the
actors. Having the past and present information, will help us decide if present
information will become less important or more important depending on whether it is
similar or different from past behaviours.
Weiner’s Attribution Theories of Emotion and Motivation.
This theory applies the basic principle of attributionto emotions and motivation. The
theory posits that our motions and motivation are affected by the attributions we
make. This theory puts forth three dimensions of casualty namely; Locus, stabilityand
controllability. The locus dimension has it that causes of events or behaviours
can be internal or external (person/situation). The stability dimension believes that
causes of events or behaviours can be permanent or temporary while the
controllability dimension sees causes of eventsor behaviours in terms of their being either
controllable or uncontrollable. (Weiner 1986)
This theorybelieves causes are multidimensional and a combination of causes could
result in emotions like anger, feelings of disappointment, anxiety, or depression which in
turn are likely to affect motivation.
The above narrations have related the causes of behaviour using the attribution
process. Knowing these causes is very important in understanding the Why of behaviour. The
general view that the process of attribution involves an actor and an observer and both
must come to play during interactions is worth paying attention to. Each theory to some
extent, accounts for the various ways we make attributions in the face of information or
even limited information.
We said earlier that attributions are explanations for events and behaviour. Heider
differentiated between two types of causal attribution – personal and situational. Personal
attributions refer to factors within the person, such as their personality characteristics,
motivation, ability and effort. Situational attributions refer to factors within the environment
that are external to the person. For example, if we were discussing why a particular student
has failed an important university examination, we would consider personal factors (such as
her academic ability and how much effort she invested in preparing for the exam). But we
might also look at situational attributions (such as whether she had good tuition, access to
library facilities and sufficient time to study). Heider noted that we tend to overestimate
internal or personal factors and underestimate situational factors when explaining behaviour.
This tendency has become known as the fundamental attribution error, which we’ll return to
in the next section.
In a similar vein, Jones and Davis (1965) found that we tend to make a correspondent
inference about another person when we are looking for the cause of their behaviour. In other
words, we tend to infer that the behaviour, and the intention that produced it, correspond to
some underlying stable quality. For example, a correspondent inference would be to attribute
someone’s aggressive behaviour to an internal and stable trait within the person – in this case,
aggressiveness. Jones and Davis argued that this tendency is motivated by our need to view
people’s behaviour as intentional and predictable, reflecting their underlying personality
traits.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 20
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
But in reality, making correspondent inferences is not always a straightforward
business. The information we need in order to make the inferences can be ambiguous,
requiring us to draw on additional cues in the environment, such as the social desirability of
the behaviour, how much choice the person had, or role requirements. Like Heider, Kelley
(1967) likened ordinary onlookers to naive scientists who weigh up several factors when
attributing causality. Kelley’s covariation model of attribution states that, before two events
can be accepted as causally linked, they must co-occur. The covariation of events and
behaviour was assessed across three important dimensions:
1. Consistency – does the person respond in the same way to the same stimuli over time?
2. Distinctiveness – do they behave in the same way to other different stimuli, or is the
behaviour distinctively linked to specific stimuli?
3. Consensus – do observers of the same stimuli respond in a similar way?
Kelley argued that we systematically analyse people- and environment-related
information, and that different combinations of information lead to different causal
attributions. For example, while attributing causality for behaviour like ‘John laughed at the
comedian’, we would run through the following considerations:
1. If John always laughs at this comedian, then his behaviour is highly consistent.
2. If John is easily amused by comedians, then his behaviour has low distinctiveness.
3. If practically no one else in the audience laughed at the comedian, then his behaviour has
low consensus.
A combination of high consistency, low distinctiveness and low consensus would lead
to a dispositional (internal) attribution for John’s laughter, such as ‘John has a peculiar
tendency to laugh at all comedians; he must be very easily amused.’ In contrast, a
combination of high consistency, high distinctiveness and high consensus would lead to an
external attribution, such as ‘John likes this comedian, but he doesn’t like many other
comedians, and other people like this comedian too; this comedian must be funny’
(McArthur, 1972).
THE EFFECTS OF BIAS
Both the Jones–Davis and the Kelley models of attribution view the social perceiver
as a rational person who uses logical principles of thinking when attributing causality. But
empirical research has discovered persistent biases in the attributional processes. According
to Fiske and Taylor (1991), bias occurs if the social perceiver systematically distorts (overuses or under-uses) what are thought to be correct and logical procedures. We will now look
in more detail at four of the most pervasive biases: the fundamental attribution error, the
actor–observer effect, the selfserving bias and the ultimate attribution error.
The fundamental attribution error
Ross (1977) defined the fundamental attribution error (FAE) as the tendency to
underestimate the role of situational or external factors, and to overestimate the role of
dispositional or internal factors, in assessing behaviour. The earliest demonstration of the
FAE was an experiment by Jones and Harris (1967), in which American college students
were presented with another student’s written essay that was either for or against the Castro
government in Cuba. Half the participants were told that the essay writer had freely chosen
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 21
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
whether to write a ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ Castro essay (choice condition), and the other half were told
that the essay writer was told which position to take (no-choice condition). After reading the
essay, participants were asked what the essay writer’s ‘true’ attitude was towards Castro’s
Cuba. The participants tended to view the writer’s attitude as consistent with the views
expressed in the essay, regardless of the choice/no-choice condition. While they didn’t totally
disregard that the no-choice writers had been told what position to take, they viewed this as
less important than their attitudinal disposition. In other words, they underestimated the
impact of the no-choice condition. In another classic study, Ross, Amabile and Steinmetz
(1977) randomly assigned pairs of participants in a quiz game to act as contestant and
questioner. Questioners were instructed to set ten difficult general knowledge questions of
their own choosing. Despite the relative situational advantage of the questioners, both the
contestants and observers of the quiz game rated the questioners as significantly more
knowledgeable than the contestants.
Heider put forward a largely cognitive explanation for the FAE. He suggested that
behaviour has such salient properties that it tends to dominate our perceptions. In other
words, what we notice most in (a) behaviour and (b) communication is (c) the person who is
central to both. People are dynamic actors – they move, talk and interact, and these features
come to dominate our perceptual field. Supporting this cognitive explanation, Fiske and
Taylor (1991, p. 67) argued that situational factors such as social context, roles and
situational pressures are ‘relatively pallid and dull’ in comparison with the charisma of the
dynamic actor. While this is a commonsense and intuitive explanation, we discuss later in this
chapter how this bias is only pervasive in Western individualistic cultures. So the FAE turns
out to be not so fundamental after all.
The actor–observer effect
While we tend to attribute other people’s behaviour to dispositional factors, we tend
to attribute our own behaviour to situational factors (Jones &Nisbett, 1972). This is called the
actor–observer effect (AOE). Consider how easily we explain our own socially undesirable
behaviour (such as angry outbursts) to extenuating, stressful circumstances, and yet we are
less sympathetic when others behave in this way. Instead, we often conclude that the person
is intolerant, impatient, unreasonable, selfish, etc. This bias has been found in both laboratory
experiments (Nisbett et al., 1973) and applied clinical settings. For example, psychologists
and psychiatrists are more likely to attribute their clients’ problems to internal stable
dispositions, whereas the clients are more likely to attribute their own problems to situational
factors (Antonio & Innes, 1978). There are several competing explanations for the AOE, but
we will outline just two of them here.
1. Perceptual salience As for the FAE, one explanation is perceptual and essentially
argues that actors and observers quite literally have ‘different points of view’
(Storms, 1973). As actors, we can’t see ourselves acting. From an actor’s point of
view, what is most salient and available are the situational influences on behaviour
– the objects, the people, the role requirements and the social setting. But from an
observer’s point of view, other people’s behaviour is more dynamic and salient
than the situation or context. These different vantage points for actors
andobservers appear to lead to different attributional tendencies, i.e. situational
attributions for actors and dispositional attributions for observers. Taylor and
Fiske (1975) attempted to test the perceptual salience hypothesis by placing
observers at three different vantage points around two male confederates who sat
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 22
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
facing each other engaged in conversation. Observers sat either behind
confederate A with confederate B in their direct visual field, or behind B,
watching A, or to the side, between A and B with both in sight (figure 17.11).
After A and B had interacted for five minutes, each observer was asked to rate
each confederate on various trait dimensions, and the extent to which their
behaviour was caused by dispositional and situational factors. They also rated how
much each confederate (a) set the tone of the conversation, (b) determined the
kind of information exchanged and (c) caused the other’s behaviour. Consistent
with the perceptual salience hypothesis, Taylor and Fiske found that the two
observers sitting behind A, watching B, rated B as more causal, while those sitting
behind B, watching A, saw A as more causal. The observers sitting in between A
and B perceived both confederates as equally influential. In a similar vein,
McArthur and Post (1977) manipulated the salience of two people engaged in
conversation through the use of lighting. When one participant was made more
salient than the other by being illuminated by bright light, observers rated the
behaviour of the illuminated person as more dispositionally and less situationally
caused.
2. Situational information Another explanation for the AOE focuses on information.
Actors have more information about thesituational and contextual influences on
their behaviour, including its variability and flexibility across time and place. But
observersare unlikely to have such detailed information about the actors unless
they know them very well, and have observed their behaviour over time and in
many different situations. It therefore seems that observers assume more
consistency in other people’s behaviour compared to their own, and so make
dispositional attributions for others, while making situational attributions for their
own behaviour (Nisbett et al., 1973).
The self-serving bias
It is well known that people tend to accept credit for success and deny responsibility
for failure. More generally, we also tend to attribute our success to internal factors such as
ability, but attribute failure to external factors such as bad luck or task difficulty. This is
known as the self-serving bias. How often have we heard governments taking credit when
there is national economic growth and prosperity, attributing it to their economic policies and
prudent financial management? And yet, in times of ec onomic hardship, they are quick to
blame external causes, such as the international money markets or worldwide recession.
Although the strength of the self-serving bias varies across cultures, it has been found to
occur cross-culturally (Fletcher & Ward, 1988; Kashima &Triandis, 1986). The usual
explanation is motivational factors: that is, the need for individuals to enhance their selfesteem when they succeed and protect their self-esteem when they fail. Attributing success to
internal causes has been referred to as the self-enhancing bias, and attributing failure to
external causes as the self-protection bias (Miller & Ross, 1975). But Miller and Ross argue
that there is only clear support for the self-enhancing bias, and that people do often accept
personal responsibility for failure. They also claim that the self-enhancing bias can be
explained by cognitive factors without recourse to motivational explanations. For example,
we are more likely to make self-attributions for expected than unexpected outcomes, and
most of us expect to succeed rather than fail. Even so, it is difficult to argue against the
motivational hypothesis, and the prevailing consensus is that both motivational and cognitive
factors have a part in the self-serving bias (Ross & Fletcher, 1985). The motivation for selfenhancement is also linked to achievement attributions. According to Weiner’s (1985; 1986)
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 23
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
attributional theory of motivation and emotion, the attributions people make for success and
failure elicit different emotional consequences, and are characterized by three underlying
dimensions – locus, stability and control.



The locus dimension refers to whether we attribute success and failure internally or
externally. Consistent with the selfenhancement bias, we are more likely to feel
happier and better about ourselves if we attribute our success internally (to factors
such as ability and effort) rather than externally (to good luck or an easy task). In
contrast, attributing failure internally is less likely to make us feel good about
ourselves than attributing it externally.
The stability dimension refers to whether the cause is perceived as something fixed
and stable (like personality or ability) or something changing and unstable (such as
motivation or effort). n The controllability dimension refers to whether we feel we
have any control over the cause.
The tendency to attribute negative outcomes and failure to internal, stable and
uncontrollable causes is strongly associated with clinical depression and has been
referred to as a depressive attributional style (see chapters 14 and 15). The
reformulated learned helplessness model of depression (Abramson et al., 1978) views
this attributional style as directly causing depression. But others have argued that it is
merely a symptom, reflecting the affective state of the depressed individual. Whether
it is a cause or symptom, attributional retraining programmes (Försterling, 1985), in
which people are taught to make more self-enhancing attributions, are widely
accepted as an important therapeutic process for recovery from depression.
The ultimate attribution error
The self-serving bias also operates at the group level. So we tend to make attributions
that protect the group to which we belong. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated in what
Pettigrew (1979) called the ultimate attribution error (UAE). By extending the fundamental
attribution error to the group context, Pettigrew demonstrated how the nature of intergroup
relations shapes the attributions that group members make for the same behaviour by those
who are in-group and out-group members. So prejudicial attitudes and stereotypesof disliked
out-groups lead to derogating attributions, whereas the need for positive enhancement and
protection of the in-group leads to group-serving attributions. People are therefore more
likely to make internal attributions for their group’s positive and socially desirable behaviour,
and external attributions for the same positive behaviour displayed by out-groups. In contrast,
negative or socially undesirable in-group behaviour is usually explained externally, whereas
negative outgroup behaviour is more frequently explained internally.
This intergroup bias has been found in a number of contexts (Hewstone, 1990).
Taylor and Jaggi (1974) found it among Hindus in southern India, who gave different
attributions for exactly the same behaviour performed by Hindu and Muslim actors. Duncan
(1976) found that white American college students categorized the same pushing behaviour
as ‘violent’ if perpetrated by a black actor but as ‘just playing around’ when perpetrated by a
white actor. The most dramatic illustration of the UAE is an investigation by Hunter, Stringer
and Watson (1991) of how real instances of violence are explained by Protestants and
Catholics in Northern Ireland. Catholic students made predominantly external attributions for
their own group’s violence but internal, dispositional attributions for Protestant violence.
Similarly, Protestant students attributed their own group’s violence to external causes and
Catholic violence to internal causes. There is also substantial evidence of the tendency to
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 24
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
make more favourable attributions for male success and failure. Studies have found that both
men and women are more likely to attribute male success to ability and female success to
effort and luck, especially in tasks that are perceived to be ‘male’ (Deaux& Major, 1987;
Swim &Sanna, 1996). The same bias is found for failure attributions – male failure is
explained by lack of effort, whereas female failure is attributed to lack of ability. Bear in
mind though that most of these studies were conducted in the seventies and eighties, and
relatively few have been published more recently (Swim &Sanna, 1996). Given the social
and attitudinal changes associated with women’s roles over this time, and the fact that the
effects were relatively small, it is possible that these biases have now diminished in Western
societies (Hill &Augoustinos, 1997).
IMPRESSION FORMATION
Impression formation is a process that explains how we form or develop
opinions about other people. How other people look like, how they behave, and
the way we see and interpret their behaviour helps us to form opinions about them. How
one develops an opinion or an image of another person is very complicated.
Sometimes opinion can be formed by observing the behaviour of an individual. This means
that most of the times we form opinions about other people with little information
about them. (Smith and Queller 2001; 499 - 517)
Usually the information about other people comes from our experiences of the people.
When we meet people for the first time, we begin to asses them to form our opinion about
them. It is this process of assessing them that result in forming impression about them. Thus
it is assumed that forming impressions about other people does not happen at once,
“immediately or automatically” (fiske 2004).
We form impressions about others in three ways
1. Through the process of selection. Here we pay attention to physical appearances or
focus on just one aspect of their behaviour.
2. Through the process of organization. In this case, we try to form a complete,
acceptable impression of a person.
3. Through the process of inference. We attribute characteristics to people with no direct
or immediate evidence, but might be based on stereotypes (Gross 2005; 376)
First and Lasting impressions
First impressions are usually lasting impressions because they are formed quickly
and are very difficult and slow to change. These impressions affect how we
perceive or see people’s behaviours and how we react to these behaviours. Our
first impressions about people usually guide our future interactions with them,
which is very important in developing social relation. (Brehm et al 2005)
First impressions are slow because we hold on to existing impressions to preserve a reality
that agrees with our expectations. We are likely going to give meaning to new
information concerning people based on our expectations of them.
When forming first impressions, we are likely going to be influenced by the following;
1. Our assumptions that people we meet are going to have attitudes and
values similar to our own (Hoyle 1993)
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 25
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
2. Our expectations of positive or favourable information from others. This
is important because negative behaviours capture our attention because we are not
expecting people to act negative towards us. (Taylor, Peplau and Sears, 2003).
3. Negative behaviours carry more weight in shaping first impressions than positive
information (Smith and Mackie, 2000)
Theories of impressions formation.
Scientists have used theories to answer the question of why certain events or
processes occur as they do. Social Psychologists have also used theories to understand why
impressions are formed.
A. Cognitive Theory
This theory uses basic cognitive process in explaining impression formation, and
states that;
1. When we meet people for the first time, we do not pay equal attention to all the
information about them, but focus on what we view as most
useful.(DeBrium and Van Lange, 2000; 1188-1205).
2. That we enter various information into memory to be recalled at a later
time, this helps us form lasting impressions.
3. Also, that our first impressions of other people depends to some extent
on our own characteristics. We see others through the “lens of our own
traits, motives and desires” (vinokur and Schull, 2000). Traits are lasting personal
qualities or attributes, which influence behaviour across situations.
4. 4. We tend to rely on information about traits, values and principles
more than ability or competence. However, the context of meeting is important. For
instance, if one is meeting a medical doctor when sick, or an employer meeting an
individual for a job interview, might rely more or pay more attention on
information about competence and ability of the individual.
B. Central and Peripheral Traits Theory.
This theory is based on Solomon Ach’s Research of 1946, and has the following
views;
i.
ii.
iii.
Believe that there is a central and peripheral trait.
That the central trait if seen as important, can influence our perceptions of a person
and can generate inferences about more traits.
That the peripheral traits have very little influence or none at all on other traits, but
they help in understanding the central trait.
Ach’s example below should help us understand the points above better.
Intelligent - Skilful - Industrious – WARM (central trait) – Determined – practical – Cautions
Intelligent - Skilful - Industrious – COLD (central trait) – Determined – practical – Cautions
If strangers are seen as WARM – this trait can generate additional traits
like generous, happy, good – natured, sociable, and popular among others. Other more
recent views have shown that the meaning of our central trait can change depending on the
context within which it is used. The central trait can also be affected by what we already
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 26
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
know about the individual. Positive or Negative traits can also affect the meaning of the
central trait.
C. Implicit Personality Theories
The implicit Personality theories focus on the beliefs about what traits or
characteristics tend to go together. These theories are of the view that:i.
ii.
iii.
When people possess certain traits, they are likely to possess others too.
That the culture of the people can shape these beliefs or expectations.
There is a general tendency for people to assume that some traits or characteristics
go together and can be observed in social situations.
iv.
Our impressions of others are based mostly on our implicit beliefs more than the
actual traits of these people.
v.
We all have implicit ideas about names, birth order and physical appearance.
Sometimes, just by introducing someone, by name, or birth order whether first, last, or
only child is enough for us to assume some traits that agree with these.
vi.
We can assume what people are like even with little or limited information.
D. Expectancy theory.
This view suggests that the impression we form about others, and the way we behave
based on this impressions is mostly influenced by our expectations. Our expectation on how
an individual will be like can influence our behaviour towards that person. When
our behaviour towards an individual causes him/her to meet our expectation, the result
is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Self-fulfilling prophecy means behaving in a way that
encourages an expected outcome. It is believed that we usually do things that cause others to
conform to our impressions (Madon, Guyll, Spoth, Cross, and Hilbert 2003; 1188 – 1205).
When as parents we expect our children to behave in certain ways, they may sense this
expectation and act in ways that may likely confirm to our expectation of them. If they sense
these expectations as positive or one that encourages them or make them to excel, they are
likely to put in more effort. But if it is sensed as negative or one that expects them not to
excel, they may not put in any effort at all. It has been found that children of mothers who
expected their children to abuse alcohol were more likely to abuse alcohol later in life
than the children of mothers who did not convey such expectations. (Madon et al 2001).
E. Primacy and Recency Effect.
This theory relies on the order in which we learn things. Our first impression is
affected by what we learned first about a person, which is viewed as the primacy effect while
what we learn later is referred to as the recency effect. For recency effect the following
assertions have been made:i.
ii.
iii.
When later information does not agree with earlier information, we tend
to place more value on the first information as describing the real person and
disregard the later information.
People usually pay more attention to the information that came in first
when they are trying to form an impression about someone. Once they have formed
an impression, other information becomes irrelevant and they do not pay attention to
them.
First information affects the meaning of the later information because this information
is made to agree with the first one. If our first impression about a person is a positive
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 27
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
one, any later information even if negative will be made to agree with the first
positive information.
Generally, it seems that primacy effectis more powerful than the recency effects
because impressions are slow to change. Any information about a person is shaped by what
we already know or believe about them - our first impression. However, there are certain
conditions that are likely to influence this:-1
i.
ii.
iii.
It is believed that negative impressions carry more weight because this
may reflect socially undesirable behaviours or traits that may be harmful
or disastrous. Thus a negative first impression may be more resistant to change
than a positive one. (Jones and Davis, 1965)
The primacy effect seems to be stronger especially in relation to
strangers while therecency effect may be stronger for friends or people
we already know very well.
Information of the past concerning people we know well may change our
perception of them. Since primacy effect might remain strong because of
decrease attention of the later information, that people can be encouraged to pay
attention to both primacy and recency information, before making any judgment.
(Ludin, 1957).
The information above has shown the importance of impression formation
in developing relations. First impressions form the basis for future interactions
with others. While these impressions are important, they however, can be
inaccurate as explained by the theories. Care must be taken so that we do not
rely too much on first impressions to explain peoples’ behaviours. This will ensure
that relationships are not destroyed before they mature.
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
How others see us, is very important to us. That is why most of the time we behave in
a way that they will approve of. In our attempt to impress others, we are likely to manipulate
how they see us. Remember that while others are forming impressions about us, we are
often consciously or unconsciously also trying to present a good image of
ourselves to them. The process we go through in order to present this self image is
referred to as Impression Management. When we are regarded favourably by others it is seen
as a prerequisite for many positive life outcomes like respect, friendship, job success and
romantic relationships (Learny 2004).We will look at the major components of Impression
Management and how self-monitoring and self-disclosure are used in Impression
Management.
Impression Management also known as self-presentation has been an area of
interest
that enhances social interaction. Impression Management is the process of
presenting a public image of the self to others (Turner, 1991). It is believed that we benefit
from Impression Management because it increases our personal wellbeing through motivating
us in three ways;
1. By increasing the reward of social relationship that allows us to belong
2. The Enhancement of our self-esteem. This is an effort to increase our appeal to
others. Self-enhancement requires the use of some strategies that might include:
a.
Style of dressing to boost our physical appearance
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 28
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
b.
Personal grooming
c.
Use of positive terms to describe self in favourable manner
d.
Sometimes going the extra mile to enhance self-appeals.
3. Establishment of desired identities (self-understanding).
For Impression Management to Succeed, we need to “take the role of others” that is to
be able to psychologically step into someone else’s shoes, see from their
viewpoint and adjust our behaviour accordingly (Fiske & Taylor 1991;). If we can
imagine how others see us or are likely to see us, thenwe can make adjustments to meet these
imagined views. We are always trying to correct our behaviour to be in line with these
“other” views.
MAJOR COMPONENTS OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
We usually take into account other people’s viewpoint by adjusting our behaviours.
Just how we do this has been explained by Fiske & Taylor (1991) and Fiske (2004) who
suggested the following components in Impression Management.
1. Behaviour Matching- Here we act in ways that match the behaviour of our target
person
2. Conform to Situational Norms - Every situation has its expected appropriate
behaviour – we try to adopt behaviour that identifies with the situation.
3. High Self monitors - Those who present self in a positive way are likely to make a
favourable impression.
4. Ingratiation - Ways we appreciate or flatter others can result in favourable responses
from them. This has been shown to backfire if not interpreted well by the target
person.
5. Consistency - Once our beliefs and behaviours are perceived to be
consistent, we are likely to impress others favourably.
6. Verbal and Non – verbal behaviours - What we say and what we do should agree or
match. Sometimes the non-verbal, mostly body language will give way or ‘leak’
revealing our true feelings. If what we say does not match what our body is trying to
convey, then the non-verbal is taken seriously as telling the true story (Argyle et al
1972; Mehrabian 1972: 325-402).
7. Self-promotion - This is trying to present self in a way that will be seen by others as
competent. This could result in a negative view of self by others if interpreted as
being conceited or a fraud.
8. Intimidation- This means conveying the impression that one is dangerous
sending a message of “do not come near or you get hurt”, “do not go against
my wish or you suffer”. Most of the times, this may result in loss of credibility if
interpreted by others as empty threats.
9. Exemplification - A case of presenting self as worthy, moral and saintly; might not
go down well with others who may interpret this as ‘holier than thou’ among others.
10. Supplication - When one wants to be seen as helpless, could also backfire and one
might be seen as lazy or manipulative.
SOCIAL COGNITION-SCHEMAS
It would be very difficult to function if we went ab out our everyday lives without
prior knowledge or expectations about the people, roles, norms and events in our community.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 29
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Social cognition research suggests that our behaviour and interactions in the social world are
facilitated by cognitive representations in our minds called schemas – mental or cognitive
structuresthat contain general expectations and knowledge of the world. A schema contains
both abstract knowledge and specific examples about a particular social object. It ‘provides
hypotheses about incoming stimuli, which includes plans for interpreting and gathering
schema-related information’ (Taylor & Crocker, 1981, p. 91). Schemas therefore give us
some sense of prediction and control of the social world. They guide what we attend to, what
we perceive, what we remember and what we infer.
All schemas appear to serve similar functions – they all influence the encoding (taking
in and interpretation) of new information, memory for old information and inferences about
missing information. Not only are schemas functional, but they are also essential to our wellbeing. A dominant theme in social cognition research is that we are cognitive misers,
economizing as much as we can on the effort we need to expend when processing
information. Many judgements, evaluations and inferences we make in the hustle and bustle
of everyday life are said to be ‘top of the head’ phenomena (Taylor & Fiske, 1978), made
with little thought and considered deliberation. So schemas are a kind of mental short-hand
used to simplify reality and facilitate processing. Schema research has been applied to four
main areas: person schemas, self schemas, role schemas and event schemas (Fiske & Taylor,
1991).
Person schemas
Person schemas – often referred to as person prototypes – are configurat ions of
personality traits that we use to categorize people and to make inferences about their
behaviour. (The prototype is the ‘central tendency’, or average, of the category members.) In
most Western cultures we tend to categorize individuals in terms of their dominant
personality traits. We may infer from our observations and interactions with A that he is shy,
or that B is opinionated. Most people would agree that Robin Williams is a prototypical
extrovert and Woody Allen is a prototypical neurotic. Trait or person schemas enable us to
answer the question: ‘what kind of person is he or she?’ (Cantor &Mischel, 1979). In so
doing, they help us to anticipate the nature of our social interactions with individuals, giving
us a sense of control and predictability.
Self-schemas
Just as we represent and store information about others, we do the same about
ourselves, developing complex and varied schemas that define our self-concept based on past
experiences. Self schemas are cognitive representations about ourselves that organize and
process all related information (Markus, 1977). They develop from self-descriptions and
traits that are salient and important to our self-concept. Indeed, they can be described as
components of self-concept that are central to our identity and self-definition. For example,
people who value independence highly are said to be self-schematic along this dimension.
People for whom dependence–independence is not centrally important are said to be
aschematic on this dimension. Different self schemas become activated depending on the
changing situations and contexts in which we find ourselves (Markus &Kunda, 1986; Markus
&Wurf, 1987). For example, your self schema as fun-loving and frivolous when you are with
your friends may be quite different from your self schema as serious and dutiful when you are
with your family. You will have schemas for your real self and also for your ‘ideal’ and
‘ought’ selves (Higgins, 1987)
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 30
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Role schemas
The norms and expected behaviours of specific roles in society are structured into role
schemas. They will include both achieved roles – including occupational and professional
roles, such as doctor or teacher – and ascribed roles, over which we have little control – such
as age, gender and race. The roles and expectations associated with these categories are
commonly referred to as stereotypes – mental representations of social groups and their
members that are widely shared (Hamilton & Sherman, 1994; Macrae, Stangor&Hewstone,
1996; Stangor& Lange, 1994). Prolific empirical research on stereotypes views the process of
categorizing individuals into their respective social groups as highly functional in that it
simplifies the inherent complexity of social information. Social categories such as
male/female, black/white, old/young are viewed as highly salient and prior to any other kind
of person categorization. Fiske (1998) refers to age, gender and race as the‘top three’ because
they are the most central and visually accessible categories. So when we meet someone for
the first time, we attend to obvious and salient physical cues in guiding our interactions with
them. With increased familiarity, the notion is that stereotypes based on physical cues
become less important, and we may subsequently employ trait-based or person schemas.
Event schemas
Commonly referred to as cognitive scripts (see chapter 12), event schemas describe
behavioural and event sequences in everyday activities (Schank& Abelson, 1977). They
provide the basis for anticipating the future, setting goals and making plans. We know, for
example, that the appropriate behavioural sequence for eating at a restaurant is to enter, wait
to be seated, order a drink, look at the menu, order the meal, eat, pay the bill and leave. The
key idea here is that our commonsense understanding of what constitutes appropriate
behaviour in specific situations is stored in long -term memory, and it is activated
unconsciously whenever we need it.
Categorization and Stereotyping
Before we can apply a schema to a social object, we have to categorize (or label) it as
something – a book, a tree, an animal, or whatever. In other words, we identify objects,
people and events as members of a category, similar to others in that category anddifferent
from members of other categories. Mostly we employ categories automatically and with little
conscious effort. Categories help to impose order on the stimulus world, and are fundamental
to perception, thought, language and action (Lakoff, 1987; see chapter 12). Research on
categorization stems from the pioneering work of cognitive scientist Eleanor Rosch and her
colleagues (Rosch, 1975; 1978).
Models for social categorization
The categorization of social objects, people and events is assumed to be a more
complex process than categorization of inanimate objects because social objects are variable,
dynamic and interactive. Nevertheless, members of a social category share common features.
Some instances contained in the category are considered to be more typical than others – the
most typical, or prototypical, representing the category as a whole. The more features an
instance shares with other category members, the more quickly and confidently it is identified
as a member. For example, you may quickly decide that Sue is a prototypical politician
because she is publicity seeking, charming, cunning and ambitious, whereas Paul, who is shy,
indecisive, and avoids publicity would be considered atypical of the category ‘politician’. In
contrast to the prototype model, an exemplar-based model suggests that categories are
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 31
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
represented by specific and concrete instances (exemplars) of the category (Smith & Zarate
1992). For example, arriving at an abstracted average of two very different politicians, such
as Bill Clinton and Margaret Thatcher, may be too cognitively demanding. These extreme
instances may be better represented as concrete exemplars within an overall general category
of ‘politician’. People may rely on a combination of prototype and exemplarbased models,
depending on the social objects in question and the conditions under which the information is
processed (Brewer, 1988; Fiske &Neuberg, 1990; Hamilton & Sherman, 1994).
Hierarchical structure of categories
Categories are hierarchically structured, with more abstract and general categories of
information at the top of a pyramid structure and more specific categories at the bottom.
Information can be processed at different levels of abstraction, moving from a concrete
specific instance to a more general level of inference. Like natural object categories, social
stereotypes can be differentiated into lower-order sub-categories, or sub-types (Fiske, 1998).
For example, a super-ordinate category (such as ‘woman’) may comprise a number of subtypes (such as career woman, housewife and feminist). Listing the prototypical features of
these category sub-types is considerably easier, as they contain more detailed information
than broader and more abstract super-ordinate categories (Andersen &Klatzky, 1987).
Brewer, Dull and Lui (1981) found this to be the case with young people’s representations of
the elderly. The ‘elderly’ category was differentiated further into three elderly sub-types – the
senior citizen, the elderly statesman and the grandmotherly type. In turn, each of these subtypes was associated with distinctive characteristics and traits.
How Do Schemas Work?
What do schemas do in information-processing terms? How do they function as
organizing structures that influence the encoding, storing and recall of complex social
information?
Schemas are theory-driven
Because schemas are based on our prior expectations and social knowledge, they have
been described as ‘theory-driven’ structures that lend organization to experience. We use
these background theories to make sense of new situations and encounters, which suggests
that schematic processing is driven by backgroundtheories and suppositions rather than actual
enviromental data (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).
Schemas facilitate memory
Schemas help us process information quickly and economically and facilitate memory
recall. This means we are more likely to remember details that are consistent with our schema
than those that are inconsistent (Hastie & Park, 1986; Stangor& McMillan, 1992). For
example, Cohen (1981) presented participants with a video of a woman having dinner with
her husband. Those who were told that she was a librarian were more likely to remember that
she wore glasses, whereas those who were told she was a waitress were more likely to
remember her drinking beer. It seems that these occupational categories were used as
organizing frameworks to attend to and/or encode and/or subsequently recall information that
was consistent with stereotypic expectations of librarians and waitresses (see chapter 11 for
some suggestions of ways in which we may try to tease apart which of these three memory
components were affected in this study).
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 32
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Schemas are energy-saving devices
Simplifying information and reducing the cognitive effort that goes into a task
preserves cognitive resources for more important tasks. Schemas, such as stereotypes,
therefore function as energy saving devices (Macrae, Milne &Bodenhausen, 1994). In
ambiguous situations, schemas help us to ‘fill in’ missing information with ‘best guesses’ and
‘default options’ based on our expectations and previous experience. They can also provide
short cuts by utilizing heuristics such as representativeness (Kahneman&Tversky, 1972,
1973a). With limited information, we can use the representativeness heuristic to determine
the degree to which a stimulus is representative of a more general category. Is John, who is
shy and mild-mannered, more likely to be an accountant or a business executive? See chapter
12 for a discussion of situations in which these heuristics may be useful or misleading.
Schemas are evaluative and affective
Schemas also serve to evaluate social stimuli as good or bad, normal or abnormal,
positive or negative, and some contain a strong affective component, so that when they are
activated the associated emotion is cued. For example, the prototypic used-car salesman may
automatically evoke suspicion, or a prototypic politician may trigger cynicism and distrust
(Fiske, 1982; Fiske &Pavelchak, 1986). This is probably an important feature of some
people’s race stereotypes, eliciting strong negative emotions and evaluations.
Schemas are unifi ed, stable structures that resist change
Once developed and strengthened through use, schemas become integrated structures.
Even when only one of its components is accessed, strong associative links between the
components activate the schema as a unitary whole (Fiske & Dyer, 1985). Well-developed
schemas that are activated frequently resist change and persist, even in the face of
disconfirming evidence. So a male chauvinist with a highly accessible and frequently
activated stereotype that women are less capable than men is rarely convinced otherwise,
even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Consistent with the ultimate attribution
error described above, instances that disconfirm the stereotype are treated as ‘exceptions to
the rule’. This notion is consistent with the subtyping model of stereotype change, which
predicts that disconfirming instances of the stereotype are relegated to ‘exceptional’ sub categories or subtypes that accommodate exceptions while leaving the overall stereotype
largely intact (Weber & Crocker, 1983). For example, Hewstone, Hopkins and Routh (1992)
found that, despite a one-year school liaison programme that facilitated positive interactions
between a police officer and secondary school students, this experience did not change the
students’ overall negative representations of the police. Instead, these particular officers were
judged by the school students to be atypical of the police in general. There is considerable
empirical support for the subtyping model (Hewstone, 1994; Johnston &Hewstone, 1992).
Othermodels have received less empirical support. These include the book-keeping model,
which proposes that there is constant fine-tuning of a schema with each new piece of
information (Rumelhart& Norman, 1978), and the conversion model, which proposes that
there is dramatic and sudden change in the schema in response to salient contradictions
(Rothbart, 1981.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 33
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
SOCIAL PROCESSING
The continuum model of processing
We have seen how our preconceptions and prejudices can lead to biases and
distortions. But we don’t always behave like cognitive misers. By contrast, in certain
situations we engage in a careful and piecemeal analysis of the ‘data’. Fiske and Neuberg
(1990) proposed that the processing of social information is a kind of continuum, as we move
from schema or category-based processing to more piecemeal data-based processing (figure
17.17). These authors propose that we use category-based processing when the data are
unambiguous and relatively unimportant to us and piecemeal processing when the data are
ambiguous, relatively important, and the need for accuracy is high. For example, the time and
effort we spend forming impressions of others depends on their relative importance to us and
on our motivations for getting to know them. Everyday superficial encounters are usually
based on people’s salient social group memberships, such as gender, race, age and
occupation. These social categories access for us an associated range of expectations that are
usually stereotypical. If we are motivated to move beyond this category-based processing, we
take a more piecemeal and data-driven approach. Fiske and Neuberg’s (1990) continuum
model of processing has led to a significant revision of the cognitive miser model that
characterized the approach to social cognition in the 1980s. More recent research has
demonstrated that perceivers are more like motivated tacticians (Fiske, 1992; 1998), using
processing strategies that are consistent with their motivations, goals and situational
requirements.
Automatic vs. Controlled Processing
While processing can take place anywhere along the continuum just described, most
person impressions seem to be first and foremost category-based (this kind of schematic
processing apparently being the ‘default option’). This is why so much recent attention has
focused on the primacy and importance of stereotypes in perception. In-depth processing
requires controlled attention, intention and effort, whereas it appears that category-based
perception can occur automatically and beyond conscious awareness (Bargh, 1994; Wegner
&Bargh, 1998). This distinction between automatic and controlled processing was applied by
Devine (1989) to the activation of stereotypes. Devine argues that most people, through
socialization, acquire knowledge of social stereotypes early in childhood and that, through
repeated exposure, stereotypes of salient social groups become well-learned knowledge
structures that are automatically activated without deliberate thinking. This model suggests
that this unintentional activation of the stereotype is equally strong for high and low
prejudiced people.
For example Devine found that the activation of a negative stereotype associated with
African Americans (‘hostile’) occurred for both high and low prejudiced participants when
stereotypic primes were presented subliminally (beyond conscious awareness). So when
people do not have the opportunity to consciously monitor and appraise information, the
ability to suppress the stereotype becomes difficult, even for unprejudiced people. This, of
course, suggests that stereotyping may be inevitable, and in some situations difficult to
control. Given that stereotyping is usually linked to prejudice and discrimination, it paints a
rather bleak picture for intergroup relations. But Devine argues that, while stereotypes can be
automatically activated, what distinguishes low prejudiced from high prejudiced people is the
conscious development of personal beliefs that challenge the stereotype. These egalitarian
beliefs are deployed during conscious processing, and are able to override the automatically
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 34
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
activated stereotype. In contrast, people high in prejudice have personal beliefs that are
congruent with negative stereotypes, so during conscious processing they need not control or
inhibit the automatically activated stereotype.
While several studies now support Devine’s claim that stereotypes of salient social
groups are widely known and shared, there is less support for the claim that stereotypes are
automatically activated equally for everyone, regardless of their prejudice levels
(Augoustinos, Ahrens & Innes, 1994; Lepore& Brown, 1997; Locke, MacLeod & Walker,
1994). For example, Locke et al. (1994) found that the predominantly negative stereotype of
Australian Aboriginal people was only activated in people high in prejudice. Similarly,
Lepore and Brown (1997) found that only highly prejudiced respondents activated the
negative stereotype of AfricanCaribbean people in Britain. So, according to these studies, it
seems that stereotypes are not activated to the same extent for all people, and are therefore
not necessarily inevitable. Rather, people’s attitudes and values – in this case, low levels of
prejudice – inhibit and constrain the activation of stereotypes, not only consciously, but also
unconsciously.
THE POWER OF STEREOTYPES
In our discussion of attribution theory, we argued that attributions are not only
internal cognitive phenomena but also social and cultural explanations shaped by widely
shared representations within a society, community or group. The same can be said for
schemas, categories and stereotypes. While these have been largely discussed as cognitive
constructs, it is important to recognize that they are also essentially cultural and social in
nature, i.e. cultural knowledge that is determined by dominant and consensual representations
learned by members of a society. Because they are acquired early in life, widely shared and
pervasive, stereotypes of groups are more than just ‘pictures in our heads’. They are socially
and discursively reproduced in the course of everyday communication (Augoustinos&
Walker, 1998). They are also ideological in nature, because they are often used to rationalize
and justify why some groups are more powerful and more dominant than others
(Jost&Banaji, 1994). So social stereotypes can be used as political weapons to justify existing
group inequalities, gender stereotypes have been used to justify gender inequalities, and race
stereotypes have been used to justify racism and prejudice. Other approaches in social
psychology, such as social representations theory (Augoustinos& Walker, 1995), social
identity theory (Tajfel& Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory (Oakes, Haslam&
Turner, 1994), regard social categories and stereotypes very differently from the
predominantly cognitive and information-processing account we have outlined above. Rather
than energy-saving devices that facilitate cognition by simplifying reality, stereotypes (and
the social categories on which they are based) are viewed within these contrasting
frameworks as rich in symbolic meaning, and as being used to make sense of the power and
status relations between different social groups (Oakes et al., 1994: Leyens,
Yzerbyt&Schadron, 1994).
Heuristics
People save time and effort in making judgments by using heuristics
(Tversky&Kahneman, 1974). Heuristics are timesaving mental shortcuts that reduce complex
judgments to simple rules of thumb. They are quick and easy, but can result in biased
information processing (Ajzen, 1996), which is one of the ways of identifying that they have
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 35
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
been used instead of more time-consuming, but more accurate, strategies. Below we outline
two of the most commonly used types of heuristics: representativeness and availability.
The Representativeness Heuristic
The representativeness heuristic is the tendency to allocate a set of attributes to
someone if they match the prototype of a given category (Kahneman&Tversky, 1973). It is a
quick and-easy way of putting people in to categories. For instance, if you arrive at a hospital
in need of help, you’ll look for the person wearing a white coat and stethoscope, because
these specific attributes indicate that the person is (representative of) a doctor. Similarly,
when you enter your lecture class you might very quickly identify your professor as being the
one with the dubious fashion sense and slightly unkempt looking hair. Later on we will talk at
greater length about the use of representativeness information in the context of social
categorization, but for now it is important to note one important drawback of using this
mental shortcut. While assessing representativeness to a category prototype may often be a
good way of making inferences about someone, like any heuristic it is prone to error. In
particular, there is the base rate fallacy, which is the tendency to ignore statistical information
(base rates) in favor of representativeness information. For example, even if you told
someone that gender is uncorrelated with managerial and administrative roles in some
corporation (i.e. that there are an equal number of men and women at different levels of
power), they would probably still be more likely to attribute more of the managerial (high
power) roles to men than women, because such roles are more representative of men than
women.
The Availability Heuristic
The availability heuristic is the tendency to judge the frequency or probability of an
event in terms of how easy it is to think of examples of that event (Tversky&Kahneman,
1973). It is related to the concept of accessibility, which is the extent to which a concept is
readily brought to mind. The difference is that availability can refer to one’s subjective
experience of accessibility – the awareness that something is accessible – whereas
accessibility is typically regarded as an objective measure of how quickly something can be
brought to mind, without explicit awareness being a necessary component.
The availability heuristic can be illustrated with varied examples from everyday life.
For instance, you might feel more trepidation about taking a flight if you have just heard
about a horrific plane crash. In this example, your assessment of how likely it is that the plane
journey will be a safe one will be influenced by the availability of information to the
contrary. A neat experiment illustrates this heuristic. Schwarz and colleagues (1991) asked
participants to recall 12 or six examples of when they had been either assertive or unassertive.
After having completed this task participants were then asked to rate their own assertiveness.
Counter to what one might logically expect, participants who recalled six examples of their
own assertive behaviour subsequently rated themselves as more assertive than people who
had recalled 12 examples of their own assertive behaviour. The same effect occurred for
people who recalled examples of unassertive behaviour: those who recalled six examples of
unassertive behaviour rated themselves less assertive (more unassertive) than those who
recalled 12 examples of unassertive behaviour.
These findings are really quite different from what one might expect. Surely someone
who can recall more examples of assertive behaviour should regard themselves as more
assertive than someone who can only recall a few examples. Similarly, someone who can
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 36
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
recall more examples of when they have been unassertive should logically then rate
themselves as more unassertive. In contrast, the more examples of assertive or unassertive
behaviour people were asked to generate, the less assertive or unassertive respectively they
perceived themselves to be. The explanation for this effect lies with the availability heuristic.
The key is in thinking about how easy or difficult the task might be to people. On average
people don’t normally spend much time listing the number of times they are assertive or
unassertive in their lives. As such, being asked to list assertive or unassertive behaviours
might be something they are not used to and, one imagines, is a task that gets more difficult
after the first two or three examples that come to mind. We can assume that being asked to
recall 12 examples of assertive or unassertive behaviour would be more difficult that being
asked to recall six examples of assertive or unassertive behaviour. While doing this task, it is
therefore reasonable that people recognized that they were finding it difficult to come up with
examples of assertive or unassertive behaviour after the first few that came to mind, and that
this realization should be much greater when participants had to labour on and come up with
12 examples. As they tried to think of 12 examples of behaviour, participants will have
eventually become aware that such examples were not coming easily to mind. In other words,
there were no more examples available to them. They therefore concluded that they must not
be particularly assertive or unassertive (depending on what type of behaviour they had been
instructed to generate). In sum, it seems that people attend to the difficulty of retrieving
instances of certain behaviors and not just the content.
The False Consensus Effect
The availability heuristic is an important explanatory mechanism that we will see
again several times in the course of this book. It is also responsible for a highly robust bias
called the false consensus effect (Gross & Miller, 1997). This is the tendency to exaggerate
how common one’s own opinions are in the general population. Ross, Greene, and House
(1977) illustrated this effect by asking participants whether they would walk around campus
for 30 minutes wearing a sandwich board advertising a cafeteria. Whether they agreed or not,
the experimenter then asked them how many other students asked would make the same
choice as they did. Ross et al. found that whatever choice the participant made, they
estimated that the majority of other people would agree with them and make the same choice.
Clearly, this consensus estimate is not objectively possible. If, for example, 70 per cent of
people support one political party, then 30 per cent must not – you cannot have 50 per cent of
people not supporting this party. There must therefore be a false consensus, whereby people
believe that everybody usually agrees with them. The availability heuristic provides the
explanation for the false consensus effect. Our own self-beliefs are easily recalled from
memory, making them most available when we are asked to judge whether others agree with
us. This makes it likely that our judgments of others’ attitudes and opinions will, at least to
some extent, be influenced by our own.
The Anchoring Heuristic
It is often the case that a distinction is made between the availability heuristic and
another called the anchoring heuristic. Anchoring is the tendency to be biased towards the
starting value (or anchor) in making quantitative judgments (Wyer, 1976). There have been a
number of illustrations of this effect. Plous (1989) carried out a survey during the Cold War
in which he asked the same question in two slightly different ways. For half of the
participants he asked whether they thought there was a greater than 1 per cent chance of a
nuclear war occurring soon, and for the other half he asked whether they thought there was a
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 37
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
less than a 90 per cent chance of a nuclear war occurring soon. Both questions asked for a
quantitative estimate of probability, so one imagines how the question asked should not have
an impact on the judgments made. In fact, there is quite a considerable effect of the anchor
provided in the question. Participants who received the 1 per cent question anchor estimated a
10 per cent chance of a nuclear war occurring, while those who received the 90 per cent
anchor estimated a 25 per cent chance of a nuclear war occurring. A similar effect was
observed by Greenberg et al. (1986), who found in a mock jury study that participants asked
to consider first a harsh verdict were subsequently harsher in their final decision than
participants asked first to consider a lenient verdict.
In sum, it appears that our judgments on a range of issues are significantly influenced
by the point at which we start our deliberations. While the anchoring heuristic has often been
considered to be distinct from the availability heuristic, in essence it comes down to the same
psychological mechanism. The starting point or anchor exerts an impact on judgment because
it is the most available source of information relevant to the issue at hand. Either way, this
bias has some clearly important implications for a range of social contexts from the way in
which lawyers structure questions in the courtroom (to elicit particular answers), to the way
that opinion pollsters gauge attitudes.
The Motivated Tactician
In this section we have seen how heuristics are sometimes used in social judgment
over and above more rational, logical, but time-consuming ways of thinking. In other words,
people can sometime be cognitive misers rather than naïve scientists, preferring ease and
speed over accuracy. As we noted above in our discussion of attribution theory, participants
can and do use the complex systems outlined by models proposed by Jones and Davis (1965)
and Kelley (1967), but this only appears to be the case under certain conditions. Other times
people seem to revert to making quick and easy judgments using mental shortcuts like
availability or representativeness, or relying on simple cues like perceptual salience (which
can also be considered a type of availability). These heuristic shortcuts are much less accurate
than using more rational, logical modes of thought, but they do approximate a response that is
often within acceptable parameters. So what determines whether people will adopt one of
these strategies over the other? When are people naïve scientists and when are they cognitive
misers? According to Kruglanski (1996) people are flexible social thinkers who choose
between multiple cognitive strategies (i.e. speed/ease vs. accuracy/logic) based on their
current goals, motives, and needs. Kruglanski argued that people are neither exclusively
cognitive misers nor naïve scientists, but in fact motivated tacticians. Put another way, people
are strategic in their allocation of cognitive resources and as such can decide to be a cognitive
miser or a naïve scientist depending on a number of factors. Macrae, Hewstone, and Griffiths
(1993)
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 38
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Figure.1The motivated-tactician: conditions of heuristic versus systematic processing
outline a number of factors that determine whether people will adopt logical, rationale, and
time-consuming processing strategies in social inference, or whether they will go for a quick
and easy, but quite possibly adequate, solution (see Figure 1.)
First, people will be more likely to be a cognitive miser when they are short oftime,
than when they have plenty of it. This makes sense. Heuristics are quick and easy, they save
time, therefore, when we have to make a quick decision. So although it is less accurate,
heuristics may be the best option open to use in order to make a judgment that at least
approximates an adequate response. Second is cognitive load. Heuristics do not require much
thought – they can be made off the cuff, simply made from a “gut instinct” or intuition (or,
what we would nowcall, availability). In contrast, the naïve scientist approach requires a lot
of thought, analysis, and contemplation. If we are busy with lots on our mind, we’re unlikely
to devote much time to social perception, and are much more likely to use heuristics because,
again, they approximate a right answer without having to give the issue at hand much
thought. Third is importance. Heuristics are useful for providing estimates, but they cannot
match more logical, rational, and detailed analyses. If a decision we have to make is
important to us (e.g. whether to go for that new job) then we are much less likely to use a
heuristic and much more likely to be a naïve scientist. Fourth, and final, is information level.
As we noted in our discussion of attribution theory, people can and do make use of complex
attribution rules in forming impressions, combining consensus, consistency, and
distinctiveness information in elaborate ways, but only when they have all the necessary
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 39
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
pieces of information. If we don’t have all the facts then sometimes it is simply impossible
for us to be naïve scientists; we may simply not have enough information to be able to
rationally and logically make a detailed analysis of the issue at hand. In such situations the
only recourse is to use a heuristic shortcut to approximate the correct response.
Priming
Priming is an implicit memory effect in which exposure to one stimulus (i.e.,
perceptual pattern) influences the response to another stimulus. The seminal experiments of
Meyer and Schvaneveldt in the early 1970sled to the flowering of research on priming of
many sorts. Their original work showed that people were faster in deciding that a string of
letters is a word when the word followed an associatively or semantically related word. For
example, Nurseis recognized more quickly following Doctor than following Bread. Various
experiments supported the theory that activation spreading among related ideas was the best
explanation for the facilitation observed in the lexical decision task. The priming paradigm
provides excellent control over the effects of individual stimuli on cognitive processing and
associated behavior because the same target stimuli can be presented with different primes.
Thus differences in performance as a function of differences in priming stimuli must be
attributed to the effect of the prime on the processing of the target stimulus.
Priming can occur following perceptual, semantic, or conceptual stimulus repetition.
For example, if a person reads a list of words including the word table, and is later asked to
complete a word starting with tab, the probability that he or she will answer table is greater
than if they are not primed. Another example is if people see an incomplete sketch they are
unable to identify and they are shown more of the sketch until they recognize the picture,
later they will identify the sketch at an earlier stage than was possible for them the first time.
The effects of priming can be very salient and long lasting, even more so than simple
recognition memory. Unconscious priming effects can affect word choice on a word-stem
completion test long after the words have been consciously forgotten.
Priming works best when the two stimuli are in the same modality. For example
visual priming works best with visual cues and verbal priming works best with verbal cues.
But priming also occurs between modalities, or between semantically related words such as
"doctor" and "nurse".
TYPES OF PRIMING
Positive and Negative Priming
The terms positive and negative priming refer to when priming affects the speed of
processing. A positive prime speeds up processing, while a negative prime lowers the speed
to slower than un-primed levels. Positive priming is caused by simply experiencing the
stimulus, while negative priming is caused by experiencing the stimulus, and then ignoring it.
Positive priming effects happen even if the prime is not consciously seen. The effects of
positive and negative priming are visible in event-related potential (ERP) readings.
Positive priming is thought to be caused by spreading activation. This means that the
first stimulus activates parts of a particular representation or association in memory just
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 40
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
before carrying out an action or task. The representation is already partially activated when
the second stimulus is encountered, so less additional activation is needed for one to become
consciously aware of it.
Negative priming is more difficult to explain. Many models have been hypothesized,
but currently the most widely accepted are the distractor inhibition and episodic retrieval
models. In the distractor inhibition model, the activation of ignored stimuli is inhibited by the
brain. The episodic retrieval model hypothesizes that ignored items are flagged 'do-notrespond' by the brain. Later, when the brain acts to retrieve this information, the tag causes a
conflict. The time taken to resolve this conflict causes negative priming. Although both
models are still valid, recent scientific research has led scientists to lean away from the
distractor inhibitor model.
Perceptual and Conceptual Priming
The difference between perceptual and conceptual primes is whether items with a
similar form or items with a similar meaning are primed, respectively.
Perceptual priming is based on the form of the stimulus and is enhanced by the match
between the early and later stimuli. Perceptual priming is sensitive to the modality and exact
format of the stimulus. An example of perceptual priming is the identification of an
incomplete word in a word-stem completion test. The presentation of the visual prime does
not have to be perfectly consistent with later testing presentations in order to work. Studies
have shown that, for example, the absolute size of the stimuli can vary and still provide
significant evidence of priming.
Conceptual priming is based on the meaning of a stimulus and is enhanced by
semantic tasks. For example, table, will show priming effects on chair, because table and
chair belong to the same category.
Repetition
Repetition priming, also called direct priming, is a form of positive priming. When a
stimulus is experienced, it is also primed. This means that later experiences of the stimulus
will be processed more quickly by the brain. This effect has been found on words in the
lexical decision task.
Semantic
In semantic priming, the prime and the target are from the same semantic category
and share features. For example, the word dog is a semantic prime for wolf, because the two
are both similar animals. Semantic priming is theorized to work because of spreading
activation within associative networks. When a person thinks of one item in a category,
similar items are stimulated by the brain. Even if they are not words, morphemes can prime
for complete words that include them. An example of this would be that the morpheme
'psych' can prime for the word 'psychology'.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 41
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Associative priming
In associative priming, the target is a word that has a high probability of appearing
with the prime, and is "associated" with it but not necessarily related in semantic features.
Dog is an associative prime for cat, since the words are closely associated and frequently
appear together (in phrases like "raining cats and dogs"). A similar effect is known as context
priming. Context priming works by using a context to speed up processing for stimuli that are
likely to occur in that context. A useful application of this effect is reading written text. The
grammar and vocabulary of the sentence provide contextual clues for words that will occur
later in the sentence. These later words are processed more quickly than if they had been read
alone, and the effect is greater for more difficult or uncommon words.
Response priming
In the psychology of visual perception and motor control, the term response priming
denotes a special form of visuomotor priming effect. The distinctive feature of response
priming is that prime and target are presented in quick succession (typically, less than 100
milliseconds apart) and are coupled to identical or alternative motor responses. When a
speeded motor response is performed to classify the target stimulus, a prime immediately
preceding the target can thus induce response conflicts when assigned to a different response
as the target. These response conflicts have observable effects on motor behavior, leading to
priming effects, e.g., in response times and error rates. A special property of response
priming is its independence from visual awareness of the prime: For example, response
priming effects can increase under conditions where visual awareness of the prime is
decreasing
Masked priming
The masked priming paradigm has been widely used in the last two decades in order
to investigate both orthographic and phonological activations during visual word recognition.
The term "masked" refers to the fact that the prime word or pseudo word is masked by
symbols such as ###### that can be presented in a forward manner (before the prime) or a
backward manner (after the prime). These masks enable to diminish the visibility of the
prime. The prime is usually presented less than 80 ms (but typically between 40-60 ms) in
this paradigm. In all, the short SOA (Stimuli Onset Asynchrony, i.e. the time delay between
the onset of the mask and the prime) associated with the masking make the masked priming
paradigm a good tool to investigate automatic and irrepressive activations during visual word
recognition. Forster has argued that masked priming is a purer form of priming, as any
conscious appreciation of the relationship between the prime and the target is effectively
eliminated, and thus removes the subject's ability to use the prime strategically to make
decisions. Results from numerous experiments show that certain forms of priming occur that
are very difficult to occur with visible primes. One such example is form-priming, where the
prime is similar to, but not identical to the target (e.g., nature-mature).
Kindness priming
Kindness priming is a specific form of priming that occurs when a subject experiences
an act of kindness and subsequently experiences a lower threshold of activation when
subsequently encountering positive stimuli. A unique feature of kindness priming is that it
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 42
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
causes a temporary increased resistance to negative stimuli in addition to the increased
activation of positive associative networks.
Potential sources of error in social cognition / conceptualizing errors in social cognition
It is an important aspect of human nature that we always consciously aspire to think
rationally or logically so that our decisions or judgements about people or events are not
wrong. However, it is easier said than done. Social psychologist have found out that the
motivation to reason in an error-free manner is often overpowered by the adaptive processes
where we tend to reduce the cognitive effort required to understand the social world. Keeping
this in mind, this lecture is devoted to the several sources of errors in social cognition:
- Cognitive-experiential self-theory
- Paying attention to inconsistent information
- Planning fallacy
- Automatic vigilance
- Potential costs of thinking too much
- Counterfactual thinking
- Magical thinking
i.
Cognitive-experiential self-theory
Cognitive-experiential self theory posits that errors in our judgement results from our
intuition based on past experiences precedes the rational thinking while analyzing a problem
or a situation. - For example, a basketball player prefers a pair of old shoes (that may be
dangerous in terms ofinjuries owing to inadequate body-balance) to a pair of new and proper
basketball shoes as it occurs to him that the old shoes had proved to be ‘lucky’ for him in the
past.
ii.
Paying attention to inconsistent information
Information inconsistent with a person, his/her role or any event may be highly
effective inattracting our attention but it may distract the observer or the listener from the
consistent and relevant information. Social psychologists have provided evidence that
inconsistent information is better remembered that the consistent information about gender
roles (Bardach& Park, 1996). According to their study, the qualities that are usually not
associated with a gender (‘nuturant’ for males and ‘competitive’ for females) were better
remembered by participants than those that are usually associated with a gender
(‘adventurous’ for male and ‘emotional’ for females). These findings do indicate that the
inconsistent information may overshadow the important consistent information.
iii.
Planning fallacy
When it comes to deciding about the time we will take to complete a task, we often
overshoot the time period that we had assigned to ourselves. This is known as planning
fallacy. The reason for this is that while initially taking the decision about the time required,
rather than focusing on the time we had taken to accomplish a task in the past, we generally
focus on events or actions to occur in future. This tendency disallows us to do a realistic
estimate of time needed. Furthermore, as social psychologists have founded out, at the time
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 43
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
of initial decision-making, even if one is reminded of the excessive time incurred in the past,
the delay is usually attributed to some external factors rather than one’s own capabilities to
the finish the work in time.
iv.
Automatic vigilance
Social psychologists have indicated that rather than focusing on the common aspects
of a situation, we tend to focus more on the negative aspects of the situation. Thus, an
understanding of the common aspects of a social phenomenon may not take place as adequate
attention was not given to these. In their study, Hansen and Hansen (1988) noted that their
participants were easily able to locate an angry face in the crowd of normal or happy people
but, locating a normal face in the crowd of angry people was not as easy.
v.
Potential costs of thinking too much
There are times when we overdo careful thinking and this may result in confusion,
frustration and wrong judgement too. Wilson and Schooler (1991), in the study, asked half of
the participants to rate the several strawberry jams and the other half of them to analyze the
reasons for the ratings they themselves gave to each jam. The researchers also took the
opinion ofexperts (whoprofessionally compared various products) about the correctness of
judgement made of the two group of participants. They found out that, according to the
experts, the judgement of the second half of the participants (consisting of participants who
analyzed their own rating) were not as accurate as that of the first half (consisting of
participants who simply rated the jams).
vi.
Counterfactual thinking
We regret our actions more when we find out that ours was a rather unusual
behaviour. For example, a student who usually goes to school on his bicycle, went to the
school on-foot on the day he became the victim of an accident. Another student went to the
school on-foot as he usually does. It is common to expect that the first rather the second
student will be more regretful of his actions. The reason for the more regret in the case of the
first student is the alternatives that were not chosen by him. Both the students might have
required our sympathies equally but perhaps more sympathies (due to more regret) would be
given to the first student.
vii.
Magical thinking
Magical thinking is the kind of thinking that involves irrational assumptions often
associated with (Zusne& Jones, 1989) :

a. law of similarity, or
b. law of contagion
Law of similarity states that we assume that people similar to each other in
appearance may behaving similar fundamental characteristics.
- For example, some children might not like to eat a biscuit in the shape of a house lizard.

Law of contagion is the belief that when two people or objects come in contact with
each other,they pass on their properties to one another and such an impact last long
after the contact is over.
- For example, on might not like to use wear the coat used by an HIV patient even after it is
dry-cleaned.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 44
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
viii.
ix.
x.


Statistical Regression
Statistical tendency for extremes to be followed byless extreme performances that are
closer to average e.g., Sports Illustrated jinx or the sophomore slump
Illusion of Control
A false belief that one can control chance situationse.g., Throwing dice softly for low
numbers
Conjunction Fallacy
Conjunction Fallacy is the tendency to see an event as more likely as it becomes more
specific because it is joined with elements that seem similar to events that are likely.
Example: Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in
philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and
social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations
Which is more probable?
xi.
1. Linda is a bank teller
2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement
85% of those asked chose option 2
The probability of two events occurring together (in “conjunction") will always be
less than or equal to the probability of either one occurring alone
Illusory Correlation
Perception of stronger relationship than actually exists
e.g., believing that professional athletes who are Black are dangerous
Particularly likely when two rare events occur together
Basis of superstitious behavior (e.g., basketball player believing their new socks are
lucky because they played their best game).
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 45
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Module 3
Defining a group
Two or more people constitute a group if.
1. they have some common purpose or goal...
2. there exists a relatively stable structure -- a hierarchy (perhaps a leader), an
established set of roles, or a standardized pattern of interaction...
3. this collection of people see themselves as being part of that group
Why do groups form?
There are a number of general tendencies within us such as:
The similarity-attraction effect: we like people who are similar to us in some way
Exposure: we like people whom we have been exposed to repeatedly
Reciprocity: we like people who like us
Basking in reflected glory: we seek to associate with successful, prestigious groups
Furthermore, we also tend to avoid individuals who possess objectionable
characteristics.
Further more there are number of reasons why people join groups which are as follows;
Affiliation
Humans are by nature gregarious. Groups provide a natural way for people to gather
in order to satisfy their social needs.
Goal achievement
Problems and tasks that require the utilization of knowledge tend to give groups an
advantage over individuals. There is more information in a group than in any one of its
members, and groups tend to provide a greater number of approaches to solving any
particular problem
Power
Individuals gain powerin their relationship with their employers by forming unions.
Status
Membership in a particular service clubs or a political body may be seen to confer
status on members. So as to gain that status people join in such groups
Self-esteem
As suggested by Maslow, people have a basic desire for self-esteem. Group
membership maynurture self-esteem. If one belongs to a successful group, the self-esteem of
all members may be boosted.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 46
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Security
Sometimes individuals need protectionfrom other groups or more powerful
individuals -- "there is safety in numbers". These individuals may seek security in group
membership. Neighbours may form a "Block Watch" group to ensure the security and
protection of their neighbourhood.
The important characteristics of groups are as follows:




Social interaction. The members of a group affect each other and there is a definite
pattern of interaction among them.
Stability. Groups also must possess a stable structure. Although groups can change,
which often they do, there must be some stable relationship that keeps the group
members together and functioning as a unit.
Common interests or goals.Members of a group must share some common interests
or goals that bind the group together.
Recognition as being a group. It is not just being together would ensure the formation
of a proper group. The members of the group must also perceive themselves as a
group. They must recognize each other as a member of their group and can
distinguish them from nonmembers.
Types of Groups
There can be different types of groups that mightexist, which have been depicted in
Figure 3 below. The most common way of distinguishing between groups is to categorizing
the groups into formal or informal groups. Formal groupsare deliberately created by the
organization in order to help the organizational members achieve some of the important the
organizational goals.
The informal groups, in contrast, develop rather spontaneously among an
organization’s members without any direction from the organizational authorities.
There are various types of formal groupsthat are found in an organization. These are:




Command groupwhich is determined bythe organizational chart depicting the
approved formal connections between individuals in an organization. Examples of
command group are Director and the faculty members in a business school, school
principal and teachers, production manager and supervisors, etc.
Task groups, comprising someindividuals with special interest or expertise, are
created bythe organizational authorities to work together in order to complete a
specific task. Task groups are often not restricted to the organizational hierarchy and
can be cross functional in nature. Examples of task group might be people working on
a particular project.
Standing committee is a permanent committee in an organization to deal with some
specific types of problems that may arise more or less on a regular basis. Examples of
standing committees include the standing committee in a university to discuss various
academic and administrative issues.
Task force / ad hoc committee, in contrast, isa temporary committee formed
byorganizational members from across various functional areas for a special purpose.
Meetings can also comeunder this category.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 47
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Various types of informalgroups are:



Interest groups are formed when a group of employees band together to seek some
common objectives, like protesting some organizational policy or joining the union to
achieve a higher amount of bonus.
Friendship groups develop among the organizational members when they share some
common interest like participating in some sports activities or staging the office
drama, etc.
Reference groups are the groups, with which individuals identify and compare
themselves.
These could be within the organization when a middle level executive compares
himself with the higher level executive and longs for the perks and benefits enjoyed by the
latter. The reference group might exist outside the organization as well when an individual
compares himself with his batch mates working in other organizations or an ideal group of
people he likes to become.
Figure 2. Type of group
Formation of Groups
Two models of group development have been offered bythe researchers in the field of
social sciences to explain how groups are formed. These are: a) Five-Stage Model and b)
Punctuated Equilibrium Model. According to the Five-Stage Model of group development,
groups go through five distinct stages during the process of its development. These are as
follows:
 Forming is the initial stage of group development when the group members first
comein contact with others and get acquainted witheach other. This stage is
characterized predominantly bya feeling of uncertaintyamong the group members as
they now try to establish ground rules and pattern of relationship among themselves.
 Storming is the next stage that is characterized bya high degree of conflict among the
members. Members often show hostility towards each other and resist the
leader’scontrol. If these conflicts are not adequately resolved, the group may even be
disbanded. But, usually the group eventually comes in terms with each other and
accepts the leadership role at the end of this stage.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 48
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
 Norming is the third stage of the group development process during which the group
members become closer to each other and the group starts functioning as a cohesive
unit. The group members now identify themselves with the group and share
responsibility for achieving the desired level of performance of the group. Norming
stage is complete when the group members can set a common target and agree on the
way of achieving this.
 Performing is the fourth stage when the group is finally ready to start working. As the
group is now fully formed after resolving their internal conflicts of acceptance and
sharing responsibility, they can now devote energy to achieve its objectives.
 Adjourning is the final stage when the group, after achieving the objectives for which
it was created, starts to gradually dissolve itself.
Many interpreters of the five-stage model have assumed that a group becomes more
effective as it progresses through the first four stages. While this assumption may be
generally true, what makes a group effective is more complex than this model acknowledges.
Under some conditions, high levels of conflict are conducive to high group performance. So
we might expect to find situations in which groups in Stage II outperform those in Stages III
or IV. Similarly, groups do not always proceed clearly from one stage to the next.
Sometimes, in fact, several stages go on simultaneously, as when groups are storming and
performing at the same time. Groups even occasionally regress to previous stages. Therefore,
even the strongest proponents of this model do not assume that all groups follow its fivestage process precisely or that Stage IV is always the most preferable. Another problem with
the five-stage model, in terms of understanding work- related behaviour, is that it ignores
organizational context.4 For instance, a study of a cockpit crew in an airliner found that,
within 10 minutes, three strangers as- signed to fly together for the first time had become a
high-performing group. What allowed for this speedy group development was the strong
organizational context surrounding th~ tasks of the cockpit crew. This context provided the
rules, task definitions, information, and resources needed for the group to per- form. They
didn't need to develop plans, assign roles, determine and allocate re- sources, resolve
conflicts, and set norms the way the five-stage model predicts.
An Alternative Model: For Temporary Groups with Deadlines
Temporary groups with deadlines don't seem to follow the previous model. Studies
indicate that they have their own unique sequencing of actions(or inaction): (1) Their first
meeting sets the group's direction; (2) this first phase of group activity is one of inertia; (3) a
transition takes place at the end of this first phase, which occurs exactly when the group has
used up half its allotted time; (4) a transition initiates major changes; (5) a second phase of
inertia follows the transition; and (6) the group's last meeting is characterized by markedly
accelerated activity . This pattern is called the punctuated equilibrium model and is shown
below.
The first meeting sets the group's direction. A framework of behavioural pat- terns
and assumptions through which the group will approach its project emerges in this first
meeting. These lasting patterns can appear as early as the first few seconds of the group's
life. Once set, the group's direction becomes "written in stone" and is unlikely to be reexamined throughout the first half of the group's life. This is a period of inertia that is, the
group tends to stand still or become locked into a fixed course of action. Even if it gains new
insights that challenge initial patterns and assumptions, the group is incapable of acting on
these new insights in
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 49
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Phase 1.
One of the more interesting discoveries made in these studies was that each group
experienced its transition at the same point in its calendar-precisely halfway between its first
meeting and its official deadline-despite the fact that some groups spent as little as an hour on
their project while others spent six months. It was as if the groups universally experienced a
midlife crisis at this point. The midpoint appears to work like an alarm clock, heightening
members ‘awareness that their time is limited and that they need to "get moving." This
transition ends Phase 1 and is characterized by a concentrated burst of changes in which old
patterns are dropped and new perspectives are adopted. The transition sets a revised direction
for
Phase 2.
Phase 2 is a new equilibrium or period of inertia. In this phase, the group executes
plans created during the transition period. The group's last meeting is characterized bya final
burst of activity to finish its work. In summary, the punctuated-equilibrium model
characterizes groups as exhibiting long periods of inertia interspersed with brief revolutionary
changes triggered primarily by their members' awareness of time and deadlines. Keep in
mind, however, that this model doesn't apply to all groups. It'sessentiallylimited to
temporarytask groups that are working under a time-constrained completion deadline.
Group Structurerefers to the pattern of interrelationship that exists among the group
members, and makes the group functioning orderly and predictable. Four important aspects of
group’s structure are:
 Role or the typical part played by an individual group member in accordance with the
expectations of other members from him. Role expectations refer to the behaviours
that are expected from the person playing the role. The person holding the role is
known as the role incumbent. Role ambiguity takes place when the person holding the
role feels confused and does not know what is being expected from him. The role
incumbent is said to suffer from the problem role identity when he faces difficulty in
accepting the assigned role.
 Norms or the rules and mutual expectations that develop within the group. This refers
to the generally agreed upon rules that guide the group members’ behaviour. Norms
have profound effect on members’ behaviours it ensures conformity among them.
Norms can be of two types: prescriptive when it dictates behaviours that should be
performed and proscriptive when it dictates specific behaviours that should be
avoided by the group members.
 Status or the relative prestige or social position given to groups or individuals by
others. People often join the core group or a renowned club because of the prestige
associated with these groups.
 Group cohesiveness referring to the strength of group members’ desires to remain a
part of the group. This also refers to the degree of attraction of the group members for
each other and the ‘we-feeling’ among the members. The degree of cohesiveness has
been found to depend on external threats, the difficulty in getting included in the
group, the amount of time spent by the group members with each other and the
success of the group.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 50
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Individual’s Performance in Groups
Groups are formed with individuals, but the output of the groups is not just the sumtotal of individual’s contribution towards the group. The term group synergy refers to the fact
the action of two or more group members result in an effect that is different from the
individual summation of their contributions. This occurs because of the social facilitation
effect which refers to the tendency for performance of an individual group member to
improve in response to the presence of other members. However, the group performance is
not always guaranteed to improve as often group members are found to exert less individual
effort. This is known as social loafing when members are found to enjoy a ‘free ride’ which
tends to increase with group’s size.
Group dynamics
A group can be defined as two or more individuals that are connected to each another
by social relationships. Groups tend to interact, influence each other, and share a common
identity. They have a number of emergent qualities that distinguish them from aggregates:



Norms - implicit rules and expectations for group members to follow, e.g. saying
thank you, shaking hands.
Roles - implicit rules and expectations for specific members within the group, e.g. the
oldest sibling, who mayhave additional responsibilities in the family.
Relations - patterns of liking within the group, and also differences in prestige or
status, e.g. leaders, popularpeople.
Temporary groups and aggregates share few or none of these features, and do not
qualify as true social groups. People waiting in line to get on a bus, for example, do not
constitute a group. Groups are important not only because they offer social support,
resources, and a feeling of belonging, but because they supplement an individual's selfconcept. To a large extent, humans define themselves by the group memberships which form
their social identity. The shared social identity of individuals within a group influences
intergroup behaviour, the way in which groups behave towards and perceive each other.
These perceptions and behaviours in turn define the social identity of individuals within the
interacting groups. The tendency to define oneself by membershipof a group leads to
intergroup discrimination, which involves favourable perceptions and behaviours directed
towards the in-group, but negative perceptions and behaviours directed towards the outgroup.
Intergroup discrimination leads to prejudice and stereotyping, while the processes of
social facilitation and group polarization encourage extreme behaviours towards the outgroup. Groups often moderate and improve decision making, and are frequently relied upon
for these benefits, such as committees and juries. A number of group biases, however, can
interfere with effective decision making. For example, group polarization, formerly known as
the "risky shift," occurs when people polarize their views in a moreextreme direction after
group discussion. More problematic is the phenomenon of groupthink. This is a collective
thinking defect that is characterized by a premature consensus or an incorrect assumption of
consensus, caused bymembers of a group failing to promote views which are not consistent
with the views of other members. Groupthinkoccurs in a variety of situations, including
isolation of a group and the presence of a highly directive leader. Janis offered the 1961 Bay
of Pigs Invasion as a historical case of groupthink.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 51
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Groups also affect performance and productivity. Social facilitation, for example, is a
tendency to work harder and faster in the presence of others. Social facilitation increases the
likelihood of the dominant response, which tends to improve performance on simple tasks
and reduce it on complex tasks. In contrast, social loafing is the tendency of individuals to
slack when working in a group. Social loafing is common when the task is considered
unimportant and individual contributions are not easy to see. Social psychologists study
group-related (collective) phenomena such as the behaviour of crowds. An important concept
in this area is deindividuation, a reduced state of self-awareness that can be caused by
feelings of anonymity. Deindividuation is associated with uninhibited and sometimes
dangerous behaviour. It is common in crowds and mobs, but it can also be caused by a
disguise, a uniform, alcohol, dark environments, or online anonymity.
Group
How do groups affect our behaviour? To find out, social psychologists study the
variousinfluences that operate in the simplest of groups-one person in the presence of
another-and those that operate in more complex groups, such as families, teams, and
committees.
Social Facilitation
Having noticed that cyclists’ racing times were faster when they competed against
each other than when they competed with a clock, Norman Triplett (1898) hypothesized that
the presence of others boosts performance. To test his hypothesis, Triplett had adolescents
wind a fishing reel as rapidly as possible. He discovered that they wound the reel faster in the
presence of someone doing the same thing. This phenomenon of stronger performance in
others’ presence is called social facilitation. For example, after a light turns green, drivers
take about 15 percent less time to travel the first 100 yards when another car is beside them at
the intersection than when they are alone (Towler, 1986).
But on tougher tasks (learning nonsense syllables or solving complex multiplication
problems), people perform less well when observers or others working on the same task are
present. Further studies revealed why the presence of others sometimes helps and sometimes
hinders performance (Guerin, 1986; Zajonc, 1965). When others observe us, we become
aroused. This arousal strengthens the most likely response—the correct one on an easy task,
an incorrect one on a difficult task. Thus, when we are being observed, we perform welllearned tasks more quickly and accurately, and unmastered tasks less quickly and accurately.
James Michaels and his associates (1982) found that expert pool players who made 71
percent of their shots when alone made 80 percent when four people came to watch them.
Poor shooters, who made 36 percent of their shots when alone, made only 25 percent when
watched. The energizing effect of an enthusiastic audience probably contributes to the home
advantage enjoyed by various sports teams. Studies of more than 80,000 college and
professional athletic events in Canada, the United States, and England reveal that home teams
win about 6 in 10 games (somewhat fewer for baseball and football, somewhat more for
basketball and soccer-see (table 1).
Table 1 Home advantage in major team sports
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 52
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
What you do well, you are likely to do even better in front of an audience, especially
a friendly audience; what you normally find difficult may seem all but impossible when
you are being watched. Social facilitation also helps explain a funny effect of crowding:
Comedy routines that are mildly amusing to people in an uncrowded room seem funnier in a
densely packed room (Aiello et al., 1983; Freedman &Perlick, 1979). As comedians and
actors know, a “good house” is a full one. The arousal triggered by crowding amplifies other
reactions, too. If sitting close to one another, participants in experiments like a friendly
person even more, an unfriendly person even less (Schiffenbauer&Schiavo, 1976; Storms
& Thomas, 1977). The practical lesson: If choosing a room for a class or setting up chairs for
a gathering, have barely enough seating.
Social Loafing
Social facilitation experiments test the effect of others’ presence onperformance on an
individual task, such as shooting pool. But what happens to performance when people
perform the task as a group? In a team tug-of-war, for example, do you suppose your effort
would be more than, less than, or the same as theeffort you would exert in a one-on-one tugof-war? To find out, Alan Ingham and hisfellow researchers (1974) asked blindfolded
University of Massachusetts students to“pull as hard as you can” on a rope. When Ingham
fooled the students into believingthree others were also pulling behind them, they exerted
only 82 percent as much effort as when they knew they were pulling alone.
BibbLatané (1981; Jackson & Williams, 1988) describe this diminished effort associal
loafing. In 78 experiments conducted in the United States, India, Thailand,Japan, China, and
Taiwan, social loafing occurred on various tasks, though it was especially common among
men in individualistic cultures (Karau& Williams, 1993).
In one of Latané’s experiments, blindfolded people seated in a group clapped
or shouted as loud as they could while listening through headphones to the sound of loud
clapping or shouting. When told they were doing it with the others, the participants produced
about one third less noise than when they thought their individual efforts were identifiable.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 53
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Why this social loafing? First, people acting as part of a group feel less accountable
and therefore worry less about what others think. Second, they may view their contribution as
dispensable (Harkins & Szymanski, 1989; Kerr &Bruun, 1983). As manyleaders of
organizations know-and as you have perhaps observed on student group assignments-if group
members share equally in the benefits regardless of how much they contribute, some may
slack off. Unless highly motivated and identified with their group, they may free-ride on the
other group members’ efforts.
Deindividuation
So, the presence of others can arouse people (as in the social facilitation experiments)
or can diminish their feelings of responsibility (as in the social loafing experiments). But
sometimes the presence of others both arouses people and diminishes their sense of
responsibility. The result can be uninhibited behaviourranging from a food fight in the dining
hall or screaming at a basketball referee to vandalism or rioting. Abandoning normal
restraints to the power of the group is termed deindividuation.To be deindividuated is to be
less self-conscious and less restrained when in a group situation.
Deindividuation often occurs when group participation makes people feel aroused and
anonymous. In one experiment, New York University women dressed in depersonalizing Ku
Klux Klan–style hoods delivered twice as much electric shock to a victim as did identifiable
women (Zimbardo, 1970). (As in all such experiments, the “victim” did not actually receive
the shocks.) Similarly, tribal warriors who depersonalize themselves with face paints or
masks are more likely than those with exposedfaces to kill, torture, or mutilate captured
enemies (Watson, 1973). Whether in a mob, at a rock concert, at a ballgame, or at worship, to
lose self-consciousness (to become deindividuated) is to become more responsive to the
group experience.
EFFECTS OF GROUP INTERACTION
Group Polarization and Groupthink
We have examined the conditions under which being in the presenceof others can



Motivate people to exert themselves or tempt them to free-ride on the efforts ofothers.
Make easy tasks easier and difficult tasks harder.
Enhance humour or fuel mob violence.
Research shows that interacting with others can similarly have both bad and
goodeffects.
Group Polarization
Educational researchers have noted that, over time, initial differences between groups
of college students tend to grow. If the first-year students at College X tend to be more
intellectually oriented than those at College Y, that difference will probably be amplified by
the time they are seniors. And if the political conservatism of students who join fraternities
and sororities is greater than that of students who do not, the gap in the political attitudes
of the two groups will probably widen as they progress through college (Wilson et al., 1975).
Similarly, notes Eleanor Maccoby (2002) from her decades of observing gender
development, girls talk more intimately than boys do and play and fantasize less
aggressively-and these gender differences widen over time as they interact mostly with their
own gender.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 54
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
FIGURE 2. Group polarization. If a group is likeminded, discussion strengthens its
prevailing opinions. Talking over racial issues increased prejudice in a high-prejudice group
of high school students and decreased it in a low prejudice group (Myers & Bishop, 1970)
This enhancement of a group’s prevailing tendencies-called group polarizationoccurs when people within a group discuss an idea that most of them either favour or oppose.
Group polarization can have beneficial results, as when it amplifies a soughtafter spiritual
awareness or reinforces the resolve of those in a self-help group, or strengthens
feelings of tolerance in a low-prejudice group. But it can also have dire consequences.
George Bishop and I discovered that when high-prejudice students discussed racial issues,
they became more prejudiced (Figure 2). (Low-prejudice students became even more
accepting.) The experiment’s ideological separation and polarization finds a seeming parallel
in the growing polarization of American politics.
The percentage of landslide counties-voting 60 percent or more for one presidential
candidate-- increased from 26 percent in 1976 to 48 percent in 2004 (Bishop, 2004). More
and more, people are living near and learning from others who think as they do. One
experiment brought together small groups of citizens in liberal Boulder, Colorado, and
other groups down in conservative Colorado Springs, to discuss global climate change,
affirmative action, and same-sex unions. Although the discussionsincreased agreement
within groups, those in Boulder generally moved further left andthose in Colorado Springs
moved further right (Schkadeet al., 2006). Thus ideological separation +deliberation
=polarization between groups. The polarizing effect of interaction among the like-minded
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 55
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
applies also to suicide terrorists. After analysing terrorist organizations around the world,
psychologists
Clark McCauley and Mary Segal (1987; McCauley, 2002) noted that the
terrorist mentality does not erupt suddenly. Rather, it usually arises among people who get
together because of a grievance and then become more and more extreme as they interact in
isolation from any moderating influences. Increasingly, group members (who may be isolated
with other “brothers” and “sisters” in camps) categorize the world as “us” against “them”
(Moghaddam, 2005; Qirko, 2004). Suicide terrorism is virtually never done on a personal
whim, reports researcher Ariel Merari (2002). The like-minded echo chamber will continue to
polarize people, speculates the 2006 U.S. National Intelligence estimate: “We assess that the
operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow.” The Internet provides a medium for
group polarization. Its tens of thousands of virtual groups enable bereaved parents,
peacemakers, and teachers to find solace and support from kindred spirits. But the Internet
also enables people who share interests in government conspiracy, extra-terrestrialvisitors,
White supremacy, or citizen militias to find one another and to find support for their shared
suspicions (McKenna &Bargh, 1998).
Group Think
Does group interaction ever distort important decisions? Social psychologist Irving
Janis began to think so as he read historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.’s account of how
President John F. Kennedy and his advisers blundered into an ill-fated plan to invade Cuba
with 1400 CIA-trained Cuban exiles. When the invaders were easily captured and soon linked
to the U.S. government, Kennedy wondered in hindsight, “How could we have been so
stupid?
To find out, Janis (1982) studied the decision-making procedures that led to the
fiasco. He discovered that the soaring morale of the recently elected president and his
advisers fostered undue confidence in the plan. To preserve the good group feeling, any
dissenting views were suppressed or self-censored, especially after President Kennedy
voiced his enthusiasm for the scheme. Since no one spoke strongly against the idea, everyone
assumed consensus support. To describe this harmonious but unrealistic group thinking, Janis
coined the term groupthink.
Janis and others then examined other historical fiascos—the failure to anticipate the 1941
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the escalation of the Vietnam War, theU.S. Watergate
cover-up, the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident (Reason, 1987), andthe U.S. space shuttle
Challengerexplosion (Esser&Lindoerfer, 1989). They discovered that in these cases, too,
groupthink was fed by overconfidence, conformity, self-justification, and group polarization.
Groupthink surfaced again, reported the bipartisan U.S. Senate Intelligence
Committee (2004), when “personnel involved in the Iraq WMD issue demonstrated several
aspects of groupthink: examining few alternatives, selective gathering ofinformation,
pressure to conform within the group or withhold criticism, and collective rationalization.”
This groupthink led analysts to “interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a
WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have [WMD]
programs.”
Despite such fiascos and tragedies, two heads are better than one in solving some
types of problems. Knowing this, Janis also studied instances in which U.S. presidents and
their advisers collectively made good decisions, such as when the Truman administration
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 56
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
formulated the Marshall Plan, which offered assistance to Europe after World War II,
and when the Kennedy administration worked to keep the Soviets from installing missiles in
Cuba. In such instances-and in the business world, too, Janis believed-groupthink is
prevented when a leader welcomes various opinions, invites experts’ critiques of developing
plans, and assigns people to identify possible problems. Just as the suppression of dissent
bends a group toward bad decisions, so open debate often shapes good ones. This is
especially so with diverse groups, whose varied perspectives enable creative or superior
outcomes (Nemeth &Ormiston, 2007;).
None of us is as smart as all of us.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE-CONFORMITY
Individual behaviour is influenced by the group he/she belongs to. Have you ever
wondered why you prefer to go along with the group? In conformity, your response to social
activity is indirect. The group does not need to ask that you join them, but because everyone
seems to agree and act in a certain way, you are likely to join them. (Lahley, 1998; 530).
Conformity is yielding to group pressure. This may take different forms and
sometimes could be as a result of some motives other than group pressure. Conformity is
a change in belief or behaviour in response to real or imagined group pressure. The
presence of others whether actual or implied results in conformity. We tend to do in private
what we think people should do or the right thing to do.
In conformity, there is the outward expression of the norm and the private acceptance. The
two must agree in order for one to feel comfortable. When one outwardly conforms to what
she/he does not privately accept, then one is likely to experience dissonance or disagreement.
Sometimes people decide to agree with the group just to reduce dissonance.
Factors Affecting Conformity
People tend to conform because factors like Group size, Group Unity (cohesiveness),
fearOf ridicule, Task difficulty, privacy, group norms among influence our individual
response and behaviour in social situations.
i.
Group size and Unanimity (Majority)
Based on experiments, it was found that the size of the group, and the level of
agreement among members affect conformity. When one person tries to influence another,
the level of conformity is low, where two try to influence one person, the level of conformity
rises, with three people the level rises higher and beyond 5 people conformity levels drops off
or even decreases. Once the majority is unanimous, the pressure to conform is high, but
where one person disagrees within the group, conformity decreases. Recent findings
have shown that conformity does increase with group size of up to 8 members or more.
ii.
Minority Influence
Though not common, it does happen that the minority in a group can
influence the behaviour or the beliefs of the majority. This minority influence is usually
indirect, and occurs slowly, and involves only a moderate change in the majority view; it
is possible for an individual to resist group pressure. (Peplau& Sears 2002; David & Turner
2000).
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 57
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Minority Influence – Minority position must be consistent with current trends of
events, and must avoid appearing rigid and dogmatic providing room for some
degrees of flexibility, This will help them not to appear hell bent on their ideas and will
encourage acceptance by the majority.
Minorities do hold strong views and are more concerned over being
right. As a result, they do overestimate the number of people who share their
views which is usually less than they perceive, though in a way this helps them to
remain resolute against majority position, which does pay off in most cases.
The minority views might encourage the majority to access why heminorities are adamant
in their views or positions and this might result in change, no matter how small in the
majority.
iii.
Fear of Ridicule.
Usually wrong answers or inappropriate behaviour is ridiculed by others, such that
when the group is wrong, the fear of being ridiculed suppresses the minority view resulting in
conformity to the group.
iv.
Ambiguity of the situation – Task Difficulty.
When faced with difficult tasks, people are likely going to yield to majority answer,
even if this answer is not correct, especially if the majority feels confident that they are right.
In a situation where people become uncertain, they tend to rely more on other
people’s opinions thus increasing conformity to group norms.
v.
Privacy in Responses.
In the face of group pressure, it is easier for the individual not to
conform if asked to respond privately than when asked to respond publicly. Thus
there seems to be less conformity in anonymous res ponses or where responses are given
in private or in writing. Anonymous responses decrease conformity though it does
not remove it or make it disappear.
vi.
Group Norms
Group
norms are very powerful in influencing behaviour. People are mostly
influenced by three powerful motives like the desire to be liked or accepted by others, the
desire to be right and have an accurate understanding of the world knowing what is right and
what is wrong, and finally the desire to receive rewards and avoid punishment.
Varieties of Conformity.
A. Normative social influence.
Norms, as defined by a people affect their behaviour. Normative social
influence involves altering our behaviour to meet the expectations of others. It is
also seen as tactics of getting people to like us. Reasons for normative social influence
have been given as follow:


The need for approval or acceptance by the group.
The norms guarding the group distaste the behaviour of its individual members.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 58
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION



Norms are societal standard or what society defines as acceptable and expects
members to conform.
Culture that emphasizes the welfare of the individual over that of the group is likely
going to have less conformity in its members than cultures that emphasizes the
welfare of the group above that of the individual.
Some cultures in Nigeria might increase conformity on its members compared
to some western cultures. Think of your own culture; is it individualistic or
collectivistic in nature?
B. Informational Social Influence.
This type of influence is based on our tendency to depend on others
as sources of information about the social world. Our behaviour is mostly influenced by
the information we receive from others. The certainty about what is right or wrong
reduces our confidence and motivates us towards conformity, while certainty reduces
our reliance on our ability to make decision and reduces our likelihood to conform. We are
likely to be influenced for the following reasons?


The belief that others have some information’s that we do not have, so we conform or
agree to go along.
If our need for direction and information is met, we are likely to conform.
Group Process in Conformity.
Risky Shift – this is the phenomena where the group is likely going to advice the
individual to take risks more than the average individual advice of its members. There are
factors that might predict how risky or cautious these group advices will be, which include:
Group polarization – it has been found that discussions between group members with
similar attitudes in order to reach difficult decisions, strengthens the individual
inclinations of the members. (Cooper et al 2004). The group can take extreme
decisions than the mean of the individual member’s position which could be towards a
riskier or more cautious direction. Group polarization could be as a result of:



Exchange of information – usually relevant information from members
might result in supportive arguments beyond what the individual had thought of –
example of informational social influence.
Definition of the identity of the group compared to other groups normative social
influence.
Social categorization process which occurs in three steps:
1. Seeing self as a member of a group (the in group)
2. Identify these in group characteristics as different from the out group.
3. Stereo- typing self as a member of the group (Cooper at al 2004)
Group think – A mode of thinking in which the desire to reach unanimous agreement
override the motivation to adopt proper, rational decision making procedures (Janis 1971,
1982).Usually there is a separation of decent from group harmony, excessive cohesion, close
knit group and a direction leader to enhance group link.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 59
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
The information given above has shown that for the individual to survive in society
there is the need to positively conform to some societal norms. The society and the groups
must deliberately choose to set standards than are progressive for her members. Norms must
be re-evaluated from time to time in order to maintain positive conformity
especially for the younger population or members.
COMPLIANCE
Compliance involves direct request from one person to another or from a group to
another. In compliance, people yield to this request which is different from conformity
where there is no request yet one feels the need to conform. A request places less
demandon the individual and allows one the liberty to comply or not. Behaviour comes
as a result of compliance to a request, which in most cases is seen as coming from a peer or a
friend.
Principles of Compliance
There are many techniques for gaining compliance usually through requesting, selling
orconvincing. These techniques are all based on the following principles.

Friendship/Liking
There is a higher likelihood of our responding to request from our friends or people we
like more than non acquaintance or people we do not like

Commitment /Consistency
Once we have taken a position or are committed to certain action, it is easier for
us to comply with request that agrees with our position.

Scarcity
We appreciate and value what is scarce or not readily available
and are likely going to comply with requests that focus on scarcity than
those that make no reference to scarcity. This is seen as a once in life time
opportunity.

Reciprocity
The idea of giving back to those who have given to us is easier than given to those we
have no obligation to. We are more likely to comply to request from those groups of persons
who have given to us before, agreeing with the notion that “one good turn deserves
another” or “treat others the way the treat us”. It is assumedthat unsolicited gifts force the
receiver to reciprocate in line with implied or stated requests. (Tourangeu 2004)

Social Validation
Request for actions that agree with the norm and accepted by all are likely to be
complied with than those that deviate from what is acceptable. What we do and think about
must agree with what others are doing or thinking. Knowing that others have done the same
or complied spur likelihood to also complied.

Authority
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 60
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
It is easier to comply with requests from someone that has a higher authority or
appears to have authority over us or more than we do.
Techniques in compliance
Based on the principles above, the following techniques are used in compliance.
i.
Ingratiation Techniques
This is getting others to like us so that they will be more willing to agree to our
request based on the principle of friendship or liking. Impression management
techniques are also used here to achieve ingratiation or increase compliance. Some
ingratiation techniques include:






ii.
Flattery – praising others. This could backfire if taken as insincere by the receiver.
Improving Appearance – physical attractiveness have been shown to
succeed as compliance agent
Positive nonverbal cues -Smiles, handshakes, head nods, sitting next to all send
signals that are to some positive in nature.
Small favours for target persons – Increases likelihood to comply.
Incidental similarity – similarities in names, birthdays and towns are likely to increase
the tendency to comply to the persons requests.
Cooperation with others – showing them that you are on their side might
make them comply.
Foot – in – the – door – (FITD) Technique.
In this technique, requests begin with small ones and when granted,
move on to make larger ones, usually the desired request. In this case, the
chance of compliance is increased after the initial small request for compliance
was successful. Most free samples or free trials in commercials for products
capitalize on this technique. The catch word is that once you accept the free sample, it
becomes easier to request that you buy the product. This technique induces increased
compliance. Because it relies on the principle of consistency, where refusing the larger
request will not be consistent with our first behaviour of complying with the small
request, it has been found also that when people comply with small request this
leads to their complying to larger ones for two reasons:


iii.
People find it easier to comply to requests that cost little in terms of money and input.
People feel committed to the cause or issues involved when they comply to smaller
requests. (Burger and Guadagne 2003)
Door – in – the – face (DIF) Technique.
Door-in-the-face is another way of obtaining compliance that is almost the opposite
of – FITD technique. Here one begins with asking for a big favour or making an almost
impossible request that is likely going to be turned down. Once request is denied; the
person making the request agrees that it was excessive or asking for too much,
and compromises by making a smaller request – usually this smaller request is what
the individual really wanted initially. Idea is that when this first request is
compared with the first one the individual is likely going to comply with the
second partly because there was a promise – middle ground so to speak, and also that seemed
more reasonable than the fist (perceptual contrast).
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 61
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Note that if the second request was presented without the first one, it
is more likely that the request will not result in compliance. The approach relies on the
reciprocity norm or principle. The first technique slams the door in the face of the person
requesting. Finally, DIF compliance is emotional because when first large request
is turned down, we feel “Bad” negative emotions or guilty or “bad” negative emotions, so
we look for ways to reduce these negative emotions in order to feel
comfortable. Thus the second request provides the opportunity to make “amends” thus
we are more likely to make use of the chance to make up and relieve our guilt or negative
emotions (miller 2002).
iv.
That -is- not -all techniques.
In this form of gaining compliance an initial request is followed by an extra incentive,
before the target person is able to make any response. The extra incentive in this technique
is an effective means of increasing the chance of others saying “yes” or complying to various
requests.
v.
Playing- hard - to – get. Techniques
This technique suggests that a person or object is scarce and hard to
obtain. We tend to place more value on what is rare, scarce or not easily available. Thus
we are ready to go the extra mile or put in more effort to obtain the items or
outcome. This technique is used in the area of romance, job hunting and even
marketing. Playing hard to get increases the desirability of the individual item or request to
the point where the receiver’s choice of compliance is higher than will be if request or
item is available or not scarce.
vi.
The fast approaching – Deadline Technique.
Still using the scarcity principle and the fact that we place more value on what is
scarce is the deadline technique. Here a time frame is attached to a behaviour or item
beyond which it is assumed that it will not be available. This technique increases
compliance when the target person is told that he/she has limited time to take advantage
of some offer or to obtain some item or agree to some requests. Usually this is a sales
strategy that works well for people in business with the sole intension of busting sales rather
than the claimed notion that stock will run out. This message of deadline still has indirect
condition that implies a rise in price of deadline is missed which cases are not the case. In
fact, most at times the price goes down after enough sales.
vii.
Low – Ball (lb) Approach
This technique tries to obtain (one oral/ verbal) commitment to do something, after
this commitment has been made; the cost of fulfilling the commitment is increased. This
process of gaining compliance has a deal or an offer to make it less attractive to the receiver
after he/she has accepted he deal or offer. Success of this technique is dependent on the
importance the individual places in the initial commitment, because s/he feels
obligated to keep the promise even when conditions that led to the commitment no
longer exist or doing so might cost more than it was planned for. (Burger & Cornelius 2003)
The ideas above have shown that for compliance to succeed, the individuals concerned must
make the interaction less stressful and allow each other appreciate the quality of the
product. Where the need to comply is seen as a must, gives the individual a feeling of
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 62
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
insecurity. Society must evaluate what she wants for the group that will be accepted by her
individual members with minimal stress.
OBEDIENCE
Obedience leads to behaviour change as result of response to a demand
usually from those in authority or authority figures (Blass 2004). To what extend can we
be affected by demands from others, and can these demands influence us to hurt others? We
will try to make sense of why people obey, identify the factors that result in
obedience, the destructive aspects of obedience, and how we can resist destructive obedience.
Reasons for obedience
The Milgram’s experiments on obedience where twenty – six of his forty participants
obeyed the experimental instruction all the way and supposedly administered up to 450 volt
maximum shock (electric) level to the learner was an amazing account of how far
people can go, even if reluctantly, to obey those in authority or those seem to have
authority despite their own misgivings about the effect of the obedience.
The high rate of obedience noticed by Milgram was attributed to the following
factors:
1. The presence of the perceived authority figure. This ensured obedience in two ways
 Diffusion of responsibility. The belief that the authority figure is
ultimately in charge relieved the person from following orders from taking personal
responsibility for his/her actions.
 Serve as Agents of Force. They tend to intimidate us into following orders. Fear of
the consequences of disobedience may lead us to obey orders.
2. The timing of the request made.
If people are not given time to think through what is being demanded of them, they
are most likely to obey more than those who have time to think over the demand. It has been
found that once people do not have time to think through a demand, they become more
vulnerable to persuasive attempts.
3. Graduation of demand.
This refers to demand from the less stressful to the more stressful one or from a small
demand to more demanding one. One is obeying increasing demands. In our example, if the
demand for 450 volts was made at the onset, not many people would have obeyed. But
starting with 15 volts and adding to that gradually narrows the gap between the less to the
highest volts making obedience more rational than it would have been. Increasing the shock
level gradually is a good example of the foot – in– the–door technique in compliance. Once
one has committed to administering the lesser shock, then chances of obeying further
instructions to administer higher shocks becomes much easier.
4. Psychological Distance.
Our obedience will depend on how we feel between our actions and the result of
those actions. It also means the degree to which we can dissociate ourselves from the
consequences.
5. Socialization.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 63
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
We learn from significant others like our parents, Teachers, older siblings as we grow
up. It is assumed that obedience is also learned and may become a difficult
habit to resist. (Brown 1986)
6. Social situations
Social roles place certain individuals at advantage in relationships. The
Parent Child, Teacher – Student, Doctor – Patient, Employer – Employee, roles
where the parent, Teacher, Doctor, Employer have power more than the child,
Student, Patient and Employee in this relationship or settings respectively. How
society empowers these groups when interacting can increase or reduce the power these
authority figures have. If these roles are changed, will the use of power also change? Most
likely no.
Factors that affect obedience
In addition to the reasons people obey according to Mailgram’s experiment, the
following factors were also listed as affecting obedience or influencing people to obey.
 Status and prestige of authority figure.
The following forms of social power influences people to obey for the following reasons:

Experts Social Power
The authority figure is able to command obedience because it is believed that this person
is knowledgeable and is a responsible expert.

Legitimate Social Power
This person can influence others to obey because it is assumed that he/she has the right or
legal authority to tell them what to do. (Blass & Schmitt, 2001)

Behaviour of others.
If other people in a similar situation disobey orders or demands, chances are that others
would do likewise. If demands are made to a group and some members do not obey these
demands, the level of obedience for the group will drop or decrease.

Personality Characteristics.
Not everyone is obedient to Authority in the same way. But those with Authoritarianism
personalities are prone to follow authority figures without questioning. They
also have the tendency to react violently against people identify by authority figures as
not for the values of their in – group (Blass 1999) an example is the evident found
suggesting that German soldiers who high on authoritanism obeyed orders to all Jews
during world war 22 compared to other German men similar in age and background.
(Steiner &Fahreberg 2000)
Resisting Destructive Obedience
Obeying orders or demands from authority figures have been shown to be very
destructive where the recipient is destructive. Where the recipient is expected to
“obey before complaining” sometimes they do not have time to reflect on this demands or
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 64
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
orders but follow through immediately. Some strategies have been suggested to help people
resist the effects of destructive obedience.
 Personal Responsibility
Reminder that those exposed to taking commands from authority figures are also responsible
for any harm inflicted or produced. This means that there is a shift from those in authority
assuming responsibility for those obeying authority figures.
 Destructive Commands should be seen as inappropriate
Beyond
certain
points,
total submissions
to
destructive
commands
are
inappropriate. Here, models acting roles of rejecting commands should be made available
and individuals exposed to them.
 Question Authority Figures.
When motives, reasons and relational behind certain commands are questioned by those
receiving such commands, this reveals a lot that could make these authority figures rethink
and re-evaluate their actions. Know that authority figures have the power to command
obedience but that this power is not irresistible.
Though most of those authority figures have the machinery to enforce obedience, and
resisting may be very dangerous, it is however not impossible. Most challenges to authority
figures cost a lot but people have tried and won and have also changed the course of history
and improve the quality of life for their fellow human beings. People like Mahatma Gandi,
Martin Luther king Jr of USA and Nelson Mandela of South Africa among others are
examples of people who have dared to challenged authorities in their times and
changed the course of history for their people, and for humanity.
 Know the power authority figures have to command blind obedience.
 Knowing that Authority figures can command such blind obedience from
subordinates can help people to prepare ahead of time on how to react
during such occasions.
 Individuals can resist blind commands and help others do likewise if armed with the
knowledge above.
This study has revealed that authority figure is major factor in obedience and
compliance which society also accepts and does little to discourage it so that the
individual remain in a subordinated relationship However, he/she must be empowered
to use strategies that will help especially in handling destructive obedience, while not
underestimating the authority figures.
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – HELPING BEHAVIOUR
Prosocial behaviour focuses on behaviours that are intended to be of benefit to
others, which might include helping, comforting, cooperating, sharing, showing concern,
defending, donating, and reassuring. What benefits others could change with time and place,
and will depend also on our definition. This action might not provide any direct benefit to the
person helping, and might require the individual to make some sacrifice. Any act intended to
benefit another person is helping behaviour.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 65
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Bystander Intervention.
We learn early in life to help others. These might vary from culture to
culture, where some cultures might support rewards for helping others while some might
encourage the behaviour without the expectation of any reward. The presence of others when
help is required may affect the individual willingness to help in emergency situation. Latene’
and Darley (1970) are of the view that the chances for people to engage in the Prosocial act of
helping others requires series of decision by them as they witness emergence , which must
include the following:
1.
Notice that something is wrong.
2.
Define it as a situation that requires help.
3.
Decide on whether to take personal responsibility.
4.
Implement the decision to intervene.
A. Notice that something is wrong or unusual.
Emergencies usually occur when we least expect them. This means that
we are mostly not prepared to respond immediately partly because we are not sure of what
to do, or we have not fully appreciated the extent of the emergency. Because there
are so many activities going on around us, we may not pay attention to all of them, this
might include emergencies. Our mood affects how we notice events in our
surrounding. People in good moods pay attention to others which makes them more
likely to help. (Dovidio and penner 2004). People in deep thought or not in good moods may
not be able to concentrate or pay attention to events or others and may just be unable to notice
when anything unusual happens and might not be able to help. People who are too busy may
be preoccupied with what they are doing, that they may not be able to notice any
unusual things happening around them. Milgram (1970) found that urban dwellers
may restrict attention to personally relevant events, and may not notice strangers and their
needs as way of coping with stimulus overload in their environment.
This view was supported by the works of Heade and Yousif (1992) &Yousif and korte
(1995) who found urban dwellers to be less likely to help compared to rural dwellers. We
can infer from their study of different countries that, urban centres are made up of more
strangers than the rural settlements. People in rural areas are few and know themselves better.
B. Define what is happening as a situation that requires help.
Even when we are able to notice that something is not right or is unusual, we may not
be able to help if our definition of the event is not associated with an emergency. Interpreting
the event as an emergency requires that we have all the information we need to evaluate
the situation. In most cases we are left with little information, or distorted information
that leaves us confused about what is happening and this reduces our willingness to help.
Our ability to interpret emergencies correctly helps us to respond quickly and decisively to
them. The presence of others, have been found to affect the individual’s willingness to
help, due
to what is referred to as pluralistic ignorance. This is the tendency of the
individual surrounded by stranger to hesitate and not help in emergency, but rely on these
bystanders for information (which in most cases is not accurate)and uses this to justify his/her
failure to offer help. But if these individual is surrounded by friends, may communicate more
and the inhibiting effect will be less.(Latene’ and Darley 1968, Rutkowski,Gruder and
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 66
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Romer,1983) Evidence has shown that when people are alone they may be able to define
events as emergency faster, and even respond or decide to help immediately. Two friends
may also respond f aster while two strangers may not respond at all or do so slowly.
(Latane’and Rodin 1969).
C. Deciding whether to take personal responsibility.
Accepting personal responsibility by any individual will be less likely in the presence
of many bystanders. The phenomena is also known as bystander effect which means
diffusion of responsibility- which is the denial of personal responsibility believing that
someone else might do what is necessary or right. Individuals when alone as bystander
take responsibility, and act because the options are few or none at all.
D. Deciding on the type of help to give.
The bystander’s competence to help in a given situation can go a long way in deciding
to help, whether alone or in the presence of other bystanders. When we know that some
bystanders are competent to help more than ourselves, the more likely for diffusion of
responsibility to increase. But if the individual bystander believes he/she is more equipped to
help, the chances of helping will increase, and will likely do so immediately regardless of
other bystanders. Sometimes, it is not apathy that inhibits bystanders from helping, it may
be the issues of competence as discussed where he/she, may sincerely want to help but is not
competent to do so.
E. Implementing the decision to intervene.
This is the point at which the bystander decides to finally engage in a helping act.
Once all the hurdles from the four steps have been crossed, this remaining step
might be hindered by our fear of the potential consequences of our behaviour
if we fail. Here one must weigh the positive against the negative effects of helping
,and depending on the outcome, could result in our helping or not helping at this final
stage.(Fritzche,Finkelstein and penner.2000).
Factors in Helping Behaviour.
In addition
personality factors
helping behaviours.
to the bystander effect, some situational, emotional and
among others will be looked at as they either enhance or inhibit our
1. Situational Factors.
 Helping those we like
Those we like are mostly family members or friends, and most of what we have
discussed so far centred on helping strangers. The following reasons have been given for
why we tend to help generally.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Age and Race – Similarity of a stranger to you in terms of age and
race may increase your likelihood to offer help.
Physically attractive victims receive more help compared to unattractive ones.
Women in distress are more likely to be helped by men. This could
be due to gender difference, sexual attraction or because women are more willing to
ask for help more than men.
Holding similar values encourages helping behaviour.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 67
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
The evolutionary theory is of the view that we are likely to help family members
because this behaviour will contribute to the survival of our prehistoric ancestors (Buss
2003). Family ties, evidence show that people are likely to donate organs to family
members than to strangers. While some views may see this behaviour in terms of greater
attachment or a stronger sense of social obligation to relatives than to strangers or others, the
evolutionary view will see the case of one donating to a family member to save life, as
helping to ensure the survival of the genes shared with the family member who receives the
organ.
 Helping those who mimic us.
Mimicry is the automatic tendency to imitate the behaviour of those we come in
contact with. This tendency could also be unconscious. Mimicry has been seen to enhance
liking and results in increased helping behaviour by those who have been
mimicked. This helping behaviour is not only offered to those who mimicked them but
extended to others too. (Van Baaren et al 2004).
 Helping those who are not responsible for their problem.
We may find that it is easier for people to help accident victims and
people we evaluate as victims of brutal attacks, because our attribution to their
problems will be that they were not responsible for these problems. To the accident
victims we may attribute their problem to rough driving, bad car or bad road, thus not their
fault. Generally people are less likely to help those they believe to have caused their
problems or are responsible for their problems (Higgins and Shaw. 1999; Weiner,
1980).
 Exposure to Prosocial models
The bystander who offers to help provides a model for other bystanders, and is likely
to increase helping behaviour in these bystanders. Other findings are that
modelled helping behaviour on television, unlike the modelling of negative
behaviour such as aggression on television has increase the helping behaviour of the
viewers.
2. Emotional factors
Emotional states have been associated with helping behaviour just like any other form
of behaviour. Positive or negative emotions have their effects on the helping behaviour of the
individual.
 Positive emotions
People are likely to help when in a good mood rather than a bad one. Pleasant
fragrance makes people feel better and improve helping behaviour. Lemon or
floral odour have been found to increase the willingness to help. Other findings are that
people in good moods may not engaged in helping behaviour especially if it means doing
something difficult and unpleasant (Rosenhan, Salovey and Hargis 1981).
 Negative emotions
An individual in a negative mood is less likely to help others. Because unhappy
people are pre- occupied with their own problems, they are less likely to engage in any
helping behaviour. But in cases where helping is likely to improve one’s mood and make him
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 68
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
feel better, helping behaviour is more likely when one is in a bad mood compared to a
neutral mood. This negative emotion must not be
too intense, the emergency not
complicated, and if helping will be interesting and satisfying not dull and unrewarding
(Amato1986; Cialdini, kenrickand bowman 1982 cunningham et al 1990).
3. Personality and Prosocial Behaviour
 Altruistic Personality
Multiple aspect of the personality is necessary for prosocial behaviour, and altruistic
personality is high on five dimensions found mostly in people who engage in Prosocial
behaviour du ring emergencies. The personality characteristic or disposition includes
empathy, belief in a just world, and acceptance of social responsibility, having an internal
locus of control and not being egocentric. These five dispositions are as follow:
i.
Empathy
Empathy is rare among people high in aggressiveness but people who engage in
helping behaviour are higher in empathy than those who do not. Empathic people are usually
described as responsible, socialized, conforming, tolerant, self-controlled, and highly
motivated - make good impressions.
ii.
Belief in a just world
People high in helping behaviour believe the world to be fair and behaviour is
rewarded if good, and punished if bad. They also believe that helping others is the right thing
to do and not expect anything in return; but that helping also results in benefits for the helper
for his/her good work.
iii.
Social Responsibility
Those who help also believe that each person is responsible for doing his/her best in
helping people in need.
iv.
Internal Locus of Control
We have a choice of which way to behave, either to maximize good outcomes or
minimize bad outcomes. People who do not help have external locus of
control and see outcomes in terms of pure luck, fate or people in high places.
v.
Low egocentrism
Altruistic people tend not to be self-absorbed and competitive.
Basic motivation in helping behaviour
The reasons people could be motivated to engage in prosocial behaviour are many and
most theories focus on the people’sdesire for rewards and the avoidance of punishment. Is it
then rewarding to help, and does punishment follow the lack of engagement in
helping behaviour?
The following views were put forth to explain why people are motivated to help.
 Empathy – Altruism hypothesis
This view proposes that some prosocial behaviour are motivated mainly
by the desire to help someone in need and by the fact that it feels good to help. Altruistic
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 69
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
– unselfish helping people are willing to help even when the cost is high because have
empathy for the individual in need. Increased information or additional information
increases empathy which influences helping behaviour. Another view is that the
desire to help could also come from our need to relieve ourselves from the
additional information received which is seen as a selfish reason. When many people need
help, it is not possible to feel empathy for all of them. In some cases empathy reduces
with large numbers of people. The individual usually will decide on helping one person
from the group known as selective altruism. Most Organizations involved in charity work
use photograph of one person or child to arouse empathy so that help can be directed
towards this individual. Generally altruistic behaviour results in positive emotions. Helping
make us feel good.
 Negative – State Relief Model
Here altruistic behaviour could result in the individual feeling bad after
perceiving a person in need, and will want to help just to relief this bad feeling. Improving
negative mood becomes the reason for wanting to help someone in need. One might not need
to feel empathy before helping.
 Empathic Joy Hypothesis
The view here suggests that the individual is likely to help because the reward of
accomplishing something is expected. The individual will feel joy and have a sense of
satisfaction for making some positive impact on the lives of people. The motivation to help is
really the positive emotion anticipated at the end by the helper. This requires feedback from
the victim who has been helped. The combination of empathy and expected feedback
increased helping behaviour more than either empathy or expected feedback alone.
 Arousal – Cost – Reward (ACR) model
This model was introduced and revised by Piliavan et al (1969, 1981) to cover
emergency and non-emergency helping behaviours. This mode identified two distinct
concepts;


Arousal as the basic motivational construct which is an emotional
response to the need of others. The motivation is to relieve unpleasant
experiences that come from the distress aroused by the victim’s need for help.
The cost-reward involves the cognitive processes used to assess the cost of helping or
not helping. Cost for helping might include time lost, effort, risk or
danger to self, embarrassment, interference with ongoing activity, mental
stress. The cost for not helping might be guilt feelings, blame from
others, self-blame from knowing that another is suffering. Rewards here
for helping might include fame, gratitude from victim and relatives, self
satisfaction, avoiding guilt, money . This cost-reward may vary from person to
person, and even from situation to situation for the same person.
The information here have explained the reasons and motivation behind
bystander’s prosocial behaviours. We will always come across people in need, and or
decision to help or not to help will have to be made on a daily basis. Society must make
prosocial behaviour rewarding and less tasking for people, so that relief for those in
dire need will be available. Activities aimed at motivating and increasing
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 70
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
empathy should be the focus of society, and prosocial behaviour encouraged by
all.
AGGRESSION-PERSPECTIVES, CAUSES PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Aggression is seen always as involving physical or symbolic behaviour
with the intention of harming someone. The intention or reasons for being Aggressive are
many, but usually focus on either of the following two goals. One of the intentions for being
Aggressive could be to satisfy some needs known as Instrumental aggression, while the
second goal or reason could be from a desire to hurt someone known as Hostile
aggression – usually directed at the object of Aggression which could be an individual
or a group. Aggression could also be natural or pathological. The natural
aggression sometimes known as Positive Aggression is mostly directed at self-defence or
other form of social injustice, while the Pathological Aggression comes from within as a
result of frustration which is mostly hostile in nature, and comes with the intention to harm
someone all the time.
Social Causes of Aggression
Most of the time the actions of others or what they say result in
arousing aggressive feelings from us. Similarly, some happenings or events that do not give
us the freedom to act the way we want might lead to Aggression. Some of the major social
causes are as follow:
1. Frustration
The view that aggression is always a consequence of frustration and that frustration
always leads to some form of aggression has been aired by Neal Miller, John
Dollard et al (1939) in their popular frustration – aggression hypothesis. Frustration
leading to some form of aggression does not always find release at the source of
frustration. Sometimes the aggression is redirected, transferred or displayed to a lower
target or another target at an opportune time.
2. Direct Provocation
Physical or verbal provocation is a strong cause of human aggression. Provocation is
actions by others that tend to trigger attention from the recipient, often because these actions
are perceived as stemming from malicious intent. Once people are at the
receiving end of Aggression, the tendency is to return as much Aggression as was
received or more, especially if we are sure that the other party meant to harm us in the first
place. There are three types of provocation;
i.
Condescension – involves the Expression of arrogance or disdain by others
(Harris 1993)
ii.
Harsh and unjustified criticism; if criticism is directed at attacking the
person not the behaviour, can provoke aggression (Baron, 1993)
iii.
Derogatory statements about families. Most people might tolerate attack on
their persons, but might not stand insults or attacks directed at members of their
families.
3. Heightened Arousal.
Heightened arousal in the form of emotions could result in the
expression of aggression in response to provocation, frustration or other factors.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 71
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
According to the Excitatory Transfer Theory, physiological arousal tends to die
slowly, and a portion may persist, continue and be carried from one situation to
another. Usually the presence of this stored or repressed emotional arousals termed residual
arousal, may not be noticed by the individual or might be noticed, but is likely
going to be attributed to present source of irritation (Zillman, 1983, 1988,1994, Tayler et
al, 1991).
4. Exposure to media violence.
Media violence is the depictions of violent actions in the mass media. Exposure to, or
witnessing aggression, results in the expression of aggression and violent behaviour
by viewers. The exposure to violence by the media seems to strengthened
beliefs, expectations and other cognitive processes related to aggression. The effect of
media violence is real, lasting and important, and has implications on the society in terms of
her safety and wellbeing of victims of aggressive actions. High levels of a
ggression, was formed among people who viewed violent films or programmes.
(Bandura, Ross & Ross 1963; Busshman&Huesman 2001) Other findings reveal that
the more violent films or television programs people watched as children, the
higher the rate or level of their Aggression as Teenagers or Adults, and also
the more they are likely to be arrested for violent crimes. These findings were replicated
(repeated) in other countries like Australia, Findland, Israel, Poland and South Africa with
similar results.
This means that violence as viewed through the media results in Aggression, and this
cuts across cultures. Recent works reveal aggression was not only as a result of violent films,
but also could come from news programs, violent lyrics in popular music, and
violent video games among others. (Anderson, Carnegey& Eubanks 2003; Anderson et al
2004)
5. Pornography and Aggression
Pornography is erotic material viewed in any of the media. The association between
the viewing of pornographic films or erotic materials and several forms of anti-social
behaviour that includes sexual relation to violent crimes has been established. Most child
molesters and rapists confirm that these crimes were committed immediately
after viewing erotic materials (Silbert& Pines 1984; Marshal 1989). Men
high
in
promiscuity and hostility who view pornography are associated with sexual
Aggression more than men low in promiscuity and hostility who viewed pornographic
materials. (Malamouth et al 2000). Aggressive pornography is associated with violence
against women. Most men who are likely to abuse and exploit women may also be those who
view a lot of pornography.
6. Sexual Jealousy
Real or imagined infidelity occurs across societies. These cultures of
honour view such behaviours by women as threatening male honour and do
lead to drastic responses. Cultures where daughters are found not be virgins
result in violence to protect the family honour. In cultures of honour, jealousy
becomes a very powerful cause for aggression than on other cultures (Blass et al 1992;
Vandello& Cohen 2003; Puente & Cohen 220, Packer 2004).
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 72
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
7. Cultural factors in Aggression
Cultural beliefs, norms and expectations in a given culture suggest that aggression is
appropriate or even required under certain circumstances. Some cultures emphasize what is
called “Cultures of Honour” where there are strong norms, suggesting that aggression is an
appropriate response to insults to one’s honour. Sexual jealousy is another avenue
where the norm of one’s honour comes to play.
Personal Causes of Aggression
Some personal characteristics make certain people more vulnerable than others in the
expression of aggression. While some may remain calm in the presence of
provocation and frustration, others easily react aggressively to the slightest provocation or
frustrations. Some of the traits or personal characteristics likely to play key roles in
explaining aggression are as follow:
1. The Type A behaviour pattern.
People exhibiting the type A behaviour pattern usually have high levels of
competitiveness, time urgency and hostility. When you meet people who are extremely
competitive, always in a hurry and especially irritable and aggressive, then you are
interacting with people with the type A behaviour pattern (Glass 1977; Strube 1989).
The type A behaviour pattern persons are the opposite of the type B
behaviour pattern group. The type B group are usually not competitive, not always
“fighting the clock”, and do not easily lose their tempers. The type A group are
usually aggressive compared to the type B groups in most situations. (Baron,
Russel& Arms, 1985; Carver & Glass 1978). The type A behaviour pattern individuals
engage in hostile aggression with the intention of inflicting harm or injury on
their victims, and are more likely to be engaged in child abuse, spouse abuse
while the type B individuals are more likely to engage in instrumental aggression and their
goal usually is not to cause harm but achieve other goals like praise or gain control.
2. Hostile Attributional Bias
This is perceiving evil intend in others. Hostile attributional bias refers to
the tendency to perceive hostile intentions or motives in the actions of others when these
actions are ambiguous. How we evaluate and interpret the cause for other people’s
behaviours determine our reaction. If their behaviours are perceived as hostile and intentional
or provocative, then it is likely that these will result in Aggression. Actions are
usually dependent on our attributions concerning the exhibited behaviour.
People high in hostile attributional bias mostly do not give people the benefit of the
doubt, and they are likely to assume that any provocative behaviour by others
are intentional and react aggressively.
3. Narcissism and Aggression
Narcissism refers to excessive self-love, which means holding an over
inflated or exaggerated view of one’s own qualities or achievements. Persons high in
Narcissism do react to slights of others or from feedbacks that attack their self-image or ego.
The opinion the narcissist have for themselves are unrealistically high, and any
attempt at building the self-esteem of young people to the point where they
develop this unrealistic high opinion of themselves increase their potential for violence.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 73
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
4. Sensation seeking and Aggression
Sensation seeking and impulsivity are likely to go together for one who
likes taking risks and looking for excitement. Such people might be higher than others in
exhibiting aggression for the following reasons.
i.
People high in sensation seeking and impulsiveness experience anger and hostile
feelings more than others.
May have low threshold for anger and their emotions are easily aroused.
Might view Aggressive exchange with others as exciting and dangerous, and when
bored, might seek new experiences that may lead them to entertain hostile thoughts.
(Zuckerman 1994).
ii.
iii.
In addition
(2003) suggested
sensation seeking.
to
the points above, Joireman, Anderson and Strathman
the following tendencies related to aggression for people high in
i.
ii.
iii.
Attraction to Aggression – Eliciting situations.
Are more likely to experience anger and hostility.
Likely to focus on the immediate rather than the delayed consequences of their
behaviour
iv.
Tend to show both physical and verbal aggression at a higher level compared to
others.
5. Gender and Aggression
Like all other issues, are there any gender differences in aggression? To some extent
yes, there is research support that males are more aggressive than females, they
do engage in higher incidence of many aggressive behaviours than females. (Harris 1994)
Males are likely to perform aggressive actions and serve as target for such
behaviour, which usually continues across life span, though it may vary in size and across
situations as follows


There is a gender difference in the absence of provocation than in its presence, with
the males more likely to be aggressive against others even when not
provoked in any way, but in the presence of provocation gender
differences disappear. Once provoked, we assume that men and women respond
in similar ways.
Size and direction of gender differences vary with types of aggression.
The males for instance, engage more in direct aggression, like physical
assault, pushing, shoving, shouting, and insults. While females engage more
in in-direct aggression where their actions are concealed from the victims and
might come in form of gossiping, spreading rumours, telling others not to associate
with intended victims and making up stories.
Environmental/Situational Cause of Aggression.
Factors relating to the environment or situations within certain contexts do result in
aggression are as follow:
1. Climate and Aggression
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 74
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
The relationship between climate and aggression has been studied extensively.
Findings are that heat increases aggression but beyond some level the reverse may
be the case, with aggression decreasing as temperature rises. High temperature makes
people very uncomfortable and tired, or fatigued and not likely to engage in aggressive
behaviour for the following additional reasons.


High temperature reduces aggression for both provoked and unprovoked persons,
because for one who is hot, focus will be on reducing this discomfort
rather engaging in fights with others.
Hotter years were associated with higher rates of violent crimes. Heat
has been linked to aggression in these ways:
o People get hot and become irritable and may lash out at others
o But exposure to high temperature for long makes people become uncomfortable and focus
shifts on making self-comfortable.
2. Air Pollution and Aggression
Chemical changes in the air are likely to result in aggression if inhaled in large quantities.

Ethyl Mercaplan
A mild unpleasant smelling pollutant common in the urban areas, has been
associated with aggression, where people have been found to be more aggressive
when breathing air that contains this chemical. (Rothan et al, 1979).

Ozone and level in the air increases the frequency of aggressive family disturbances.
i.
Non smokers have been found to be more Aggressive breathing smoke – filled - air
compare to clean air (Zillman, Baron &Tambori 1981).
ii.
Lead. Association between long term exposures to toxins like lead
resulting in aggression has established (Needleman 1996)
3. Noise
An unwanted and uncontrollable sound has been associated with the display of
aggression especially when the noise is unpredictable and irregular (Bell et al, 2000;
Grein&Mc, 1984).
4. Living Arrangements.
Buildings with few tenants or residents are less likely to provoke
aggressive behaviours from tenants compared to tenants of crowded apartment or buildings.
This is because crowding tends to result in physiological arousal which might make
people tense, uncomfortable and likely to report negative feelings. This tension or
arousal can make people like each other less and become more aggressive.
Behaviour problems among juvenile delinquents have been shown to have
direct bearing on crowding for these young ones related to their living condition. (Ray et al
1982; Bell et al 2000)
5. Alcohol and Aggression.
Alcohol consumption especially in large quantities was found to make
users behave more aggressively and respond to provocations more strongly than non-users.
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 75
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
This effect of alcohol on users has been attributed to reduced cognitive functioning
and social perception. Alcohol has been found to impair or distort higher order cognitive
functions like the evaluation of stimuli and memory.
Alcohol also has the effect of reducing the user’s ability to process positive
information about someone he/she does not liked in the first instance or one that is viewed
in negative terms. (Bartholow et al 2003). Alcohol also results in disinhibition by the user
which allows one to take unreasonable risks, which might result in aggressive behaviour
at the slightest provocation.
The causes of aggression are as many as the different types of aggression that are
even known. Understanding aggression and their causes should be the focus of society and
those in the helm of affairs in any nation. While aggression might be positive and desirable in
some instances, the negativeand undesirable aggression that seems to rear its head in most
interactions should be tackled and society made to emphasize positive aggression.
Reference
1. Baron, R, A, Byrne
D., &Bronscombe N.R (2006). Social Psychology (11th
Edition). New Jersey: Prentic – hall, Inc.
2. Baron, R.A., and Byrne, D. (2002). Social Psychology, 10th Ed. New Delhi: Pearson
Education.
3. Baron, R.A., and Byrne, D. (1997). Social Psychology, 7th Ed. New Delhi: Pearson
Education.
4. Myers, D.G. (1990). Social Psychology, 3rd Ed. New York: McGraw Hill Inc
5. Fernald, L.D., Fernald, P.S (2007). Introduction to social psychology (5th Edition).
Delhi: A. T.B.S. Publishers and Distributors (Regd).
6. Kelley H.H (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28,
PSYCHOLOGY OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Page 76