Chapter 18

Social Psychology

Social Thinking

Social Thinking, Attribution Theory, Cognitive Dissonance, Cognitive Dissonance Theory, Leon Festinger, Social Roles

1a. Demonstrate Motivation and Emotion Competencies on short 50Q Obj Unit Test.

1. Describe the importance of attribution in social behavior and the dangers of the fundamental attribution error.

2. Identify the conditions under which attitudes have a strong impact on actions. 3. Explain the foot-in-the-door phenomenon and the effect of role playing on

attitudes in terms of cognitive dissonance theory.

Social Thinking

Social Psychology scientific study of how we think about, influence, and relate to

one another Attribution Theory (Fritz Heider 1958)

tendency to give a causal explanation for (attribute) someone’s behavior, often by crediting either the situation or the person’s disposition

Situational Attributions v Dispositional Attributions

Social Thinking

Fundamental Attribution Error tendency for observers, when analyzing another’s

behavior, to underestimate the impact of the situation and to overestimate the impact of personal disposition

>>when explaining our own behavior, we attribute to situation b/c we’re sensitive to how our behavior changes w/ situations we encounter

>>w/ others we often commit FAEWhy? B/c we’ve learned to focus our attention more on

person than situational context

Social Thinking How we explain someone’s behavior affects

how we react to it

Negative behavior

Situational attribution“Maybe that driver is ill.”

Dispositional attribution“Crazy driver!”

Tolerant reaction(proceed cautiously, allowdriver a wide berth)

Unfavorable reaction(speed up and race past theother driver, give a dirty look)

Social Thinking Our behavior is affected by our inner attitudes as

well as by external social influences

Internalattitudes

Externalinfluences

Behavior

Social Thinking

Attitudes & Actions Attitude

belief and feeling that predisposes one to respond in a particular way to objects, people and events

>>if we believe someone is mean, we might form dislike for person and act unfriendly

Do our attitudes guide our actions?Yes-if1. Outside influences on what we say and do are minimal (pol)

2. The attitude is specifically relevant to the behavior (good health v specific exc pln)

3. We are keenly aware of our attitudes (rehearse to keep in consc awareness)

Social Thinking

Can attitudes follow behavior? (behavior >>attitudes)??>>people also do believe in what they have stood up for Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon

tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request

(eg. Chinese “thought control on US POW’s during Korean War –p699)

(eg. Big “Drive Carefully” sign or small sign first—compliance went from 17% to 76% - p700)

Social Thinking

Attitudes follow behavior

Cooperative actions feed mutual liking

Social Thinking

Role set of expectations about a social position defines how those in the position ought to behave

Role >>Attitude?Behaviors might at first feel phony (soldiers in boot camp) but before long

behavior doesn’t feel forced>>Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo 1972)Called off after 6 days

Social Thinking

Why do actions affect our attitudes?--we feel motivated to justify our actions and to reduce Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Leon Festinger)

we act to reduce the discomfort (dissonance) we feel when two of our thoughts (cognitions) are inconsistent

example- when we become aware that our attitudes and our actions clash, we can reduce the resulting dissonance by changing our attitudes

Social Thinking Cognitive dissonance

Social Influence 18-2

Social Influence: Conformity, Obedience, Group Influence-Normative v Informational Social Inf, Group Behavior, Asch, Milgram, Zimbardo, Social Facilitation v Social Impairment, Tripplett, Social Loafing, Deindividuation, Group Polarization, Groupthink, Janis

4. Discuss the results of experiments on conformity, and distinguish between normative and informational social influence.

5. Describe Milgram’s controversial experiments on obedience, and discuss their implications for understanding our susceptibility to social influence.

6. Describe conditions in which the presence of others is likely to result in social facilitation, social loafing, or deindividuation.

7. Discuss how group interaction can facilitate group polarization and groupthink, and describe how minority influence illustrates the power of individuals.

Social Influence 18-2

Conformity adjusting one’s behavior or thinking to coincide with a group standard

-Adopting attitudes or behaviors of others because of pressure to do so >>the pressure can be real or imagined

2 general reasons for conformity1. informational social influence:resulting from one’s willingness to accept others’ opinions about realityother people can provide useful and crucial information (Baron 1996 Study p 705)2. normative social influence: desire to be accepted as part of a group leads to that group having an influence

(gain approval/avoid disapproval)

Social Influence

Baron 1996 Participants judged

which person in Slide 2 was the same as the person in Slide 1

Difficult judgments

Easy judgments

Conformity higheston important

judgments

Low HighImportance

50%

40

30

20

10

0

Percentage ofconformity toconfederates’

wrong answers

Social Influence The chameleon effect Note: mimicry is empathic and empathic indiv are liked the most

Participant Participant rubs face shakes foot

Confederate rubs face Confederate shakes foot

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

Numberof times

Social Influence

Solomon Asch 1951 Conformity StudyPrevious research had shown people will conform to others’ judgments more often when the

evidence is ambiguous Asch set out to prove that people will not conform when evidence is

clear-cut or unambiguous his question - will people still conform when group is clearly

wrong?

Social Influence All but 1 in group was confederate Seating was rigged Asked to rate which line matched a “standard” line Confederates were instructed to pick the wrong line 12/18 times

Social Influence Which Social Influence is at work?

Social Influence Results of Asch Line Exp

Asch found that 75% participants conformed to at least one wrong choice subjects gave wrong answer (conformed) on 37% of the critical trials

Why did they conform to clearly wrong choices? subjects reported having doubted their own perceptual abilities which led to

their conforming – didn’t report seeing the lines the way the confederates had

Social Influence Variations to test informational influence hypothesis

Varied group size (IV) had subject come late confederates voted out loud, but subjects wrote their vote down

Results conformity dropped significantly

Suggests that the original subjects conformed due to normative influences, not informational

Social Influence EFFECTS OF NONCONFORMIST IN GROUP If everyone agrees, you are less likely to disagree If one person disagrees, even if they give the wrong answer, you are more likely to

express your nonconforming view Asch tested this hypothesis

one confederate gave different answer from others conformity dropped significantly

Social Influence

Factors that Strengthen Conformity (Asch) Subj made to feel incompetent/ insecure Group has at least 3 persons Admire group’s status & attractiveness No prior commitment to any response Others in group observe our behavior Our culture encourages respect for social standards

Social Influence

Obedience compliance of

person is due to perceived authority of asker

request is perceived as a command

Stanley Milgram 1974 interested in unquestioning obedience to orders

Social Influence Basic study procedure

teacher and learner (learner always confederate)

watch learner being strapped into chair -- learner expresses concern over his “heart condition”

Social Influence Teacher to another room with experimenter Shock generator panel – 15 to 450 volts, labels “slight shock” to “XXX” Asked to give higher shocks for every mistake learner makes

Social Influence ShockLevel

Switch Labelsand Voltage Levels

17181920

21222324

25262728

2930

ShockLevel

Switch Labelsand Voltage Levels

“Slight Shock”15304560

“Moderate Shock”7590105120

“Strong Shock”135150165180

“Very Strong Shock”195210225240

“Intense Shock”255270285300

“Extreme Intensity Shock”315330345360

“Danger: Severe Shock”375390405420

“XXX”435450

1234

5678

9101112

13141516

Social Influence Learner protests more and more as

shock increases Experimenter continues to request

obedience even if teacher balks

120

150

300

330

“Ugh! Hey this really hurts.”

“Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all. get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now.”

(agonized scream) “I absolutelyrefuse to answer any more.get me out of here You can’t hold me here. Get me out.”

“(intense & prolonged agonized scream) “Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart’s bothering me. Let me out, I tell you…”

Social Influence How many people would go to the highest shock level? 65% of the subjects went to the end, even those that protested

Social Influence

Milgram’s follow-up obedience experiment

Social Influence Explanation 4 Milgram’s Results????? Abnormal group of subjects?

numerous replications with variety of groups shows no support People in general are sadistic?

videotapes of Milgram’s subjects show extreme distress

Authority of Yale and value of science Experimenter self-assurance and acceptance of responsibility Proximity of learner and subject ( &experimenter) New situation and no model of how to behave

Percentage of subjects administeringthe maximum shock (450 volts)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Social Influence-F/U Studies to MilgramOriginal study

Different buildingTeacher with

learnerPut hand on shockOrders by phone

Ordinary man orders2 teachers rebel

Teacher chooses shock level

Social Influence

Factors that Strengthen Obedience (Milgram) Person giving orders is close at hand and perceived to be a legitimate

authority figure Authority figure was supported by a prestigious institution Victim was depersonalized/ at a distance (soldiers can kill at a

distance…harder when closer) There were no role models for defiance; no other subjects were seen

disobeying

Social Influence

Critics of Milgram 84% later said they were glad to have participated < 2% said they were sorry, there are still ethical issues Do these experiments really help us understand real-world atrocities?

Social Influence

Some individuals resist social coercion (1 in 3 in Milg stdy)

Social Influence Do we do better in groups or alone? Social facilitation (Tripplett 1898)

enhancing effect of an audience on task performanceoccurs with well-learned tasks

Social interference (social inhibition, social impairment, social hindrance) decline in performance when observers are present

occurs with new or difficult tasksEg. Pool players 71%80% w/ 4 people pres

36% 25%

Social Facilitation

Social Influence – Zajonc’s Theory (same Zajonc as “jump 1st, disc why 2nd” in Emo)

Linked social interference and facilitation to arousal level

High arousal improves simple or well-learned tasks

High arousal worsens complex or poorly-learned task

Worsened performanceof nondominant responses(social Interference)

Improved performanceof dominant responses(social facilitation)

Increased drive orarousal

Presence of others

Social Influence Social Loafing (Latane 1981)

tendency for people in a group to exert less effort when pooling their efforts toward attaining a common goal than when individually accountable

>>mainly present in individualistic societies

Social Influence

Deindividuation loss of self-awareness and self-restraint in group situations that foster

arousal and anonymity>>Zimbardo 1970NYU women dressed in KKK hoods delivered 2x the shock to a victim as did

identifiable women

Social Influence Group Polarization

enhancement of a group’s prevailing attitudes through discussion within the group

Groupthink (Janis 1982) mode of thinking that occurs when the desire for harmony in a decision-

making group overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives

Social Influence

If a group is like-minded, discussion strengthens its prevailing opinions

Social Influence

Factors that Strengthen Conformity (Asch) Subj made to feel incompetent/ insecure Group has at least 3 persons Admire group’s status & attractiveness No prior commitment to any response Others in group observe our behavior Our culture encourages respect for social standards

Social Influence

Factors that Strengthen Obedience (Milgram) Person giving orders is close at hand and perceived to be a legitimate

authority figure Authority figure was supported by a prestigious institution Victim was depersonalized/ at a distance (soldiers can kill at a

distance…harder when closer) There were no role models for defiance; no other subjects were seen

disobeying

Social Relations 18-3

Social Relations: Prejudice, Stereotypes, Ingroup v. Outgroup, Ingroup Bias, Scapegoat Theory of Prejudices, Cognitive Roots of Prejudice- Categorization, Vivid Cases, Just-World Phenomenon, Aggression- Biological Roots, Frustration-Aggression Principle, Media and Society Influences

8.  Describe the social, emotional, and cognitive factors that contribute to the persistence of cultural, ethnic, and gender prejudice and discrimination.

9.  Describe the impact of biological factors, aversive events, and learning experiences on aggressive behavior.

10.  Discuss the effects of pornography and violent video games on social attitudes and behavior.

Social Relations Does perception change with race?

Social Relations Americans today express much less racial and gender prejudice >>but is there still unconscious racism running rampant? (Harber

98)p744

Social Relations Ingroup

“Us”- people with whom one shares a common identity Outgroup

“Them”- those perceived as different or apart from one’s ingroup

Social Relations Ingroup Bias

tendency to favor one’s own group Chimps show an ingroup bias – wiping face when touched by an outgroup

chimp Scapegoat Theory

theory that prejudice provides an outlet for anger by providing someone to blame

Just-World Phenomenon tendency of people to believe the world is just people get what they deserve and deserve what they get

Social Relations Vivid cases (9/11 terrorists) feed stereotypes

Social Relations Aggression

any physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt or destroy Frustration-Aggression Principle

principle that frustration – the blocking of an attempt to achieve some goal – creates anger, which can generate aggression

Social Relations

Social Relations

Men who sexually coerce women

Social Relations 18-4

18-4 726-734 Social Relations: Conflict, Social Traps/ Prisoner’s Dilemma, Attraction,

Companionate v Compassionate Love 11. Explain how social traps and mirror-image perceptions fuel social conflict. 12. Describe the influence of proximity, physical attractiveness, and similarity

on interpersonal attraction. 13. Explain the impact of physical arousal on passionate love, and discuss

how companionate love is nurtured by equity and self-disclosure.

Social Relations 18-4

If you you could do anything humanly possible w/ complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?

>>> Deindividuation-abandoning normal restraints to the power of the group; to be less self-conscious and less restrained when in a group situation; occurs when group participation makes people feel aroused and anonymous

Common responses

26% Criminal Act

15% Robbing a Bank

11% Sexual Acts

11% Spying Behavior

Social Relations 18-4

Please copy the following questions and answer them in your notebook— text ref p729-734

Why do we become friends with some people but not with others? (Hint: 3 factors)

Does our love for a partner remain the same as time passes?

Social Relations 18-4

If you you could do anything humanly possible w/ complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?

>>> Deindividuation-abandoning normal restraints to the power of the group; to be less self-conscious and less restrained when in a group situation; occurs when group participation makes people feel aroused and anonymous

Common responses

26% Criminal Act

15% Robbing a Bank

11% Sexual Acts

11% Spying Behavior

Social Relations

Social trap by pursuing our self-

interest and not trusting others, we can end up losers

Optimaloutcome

Probableoutcome

Person 1Choose A Choose B

Per

son

2C

ho

ose

B

Ch

oo

se A

Social Relations 18-4

I. ConflictSocial TrapsEnemy Perceptions

Mirror-Image PerceptionsSelf-Serving Bias (indiv) (Self-Effacing Bias-coll)Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

II. AttractionProximityMere Exposure EffectPhysical AttractivenessSimilarity

Social Relations 18-4

III. Romantic LovePassionate LoveCompanionate Love

equity, mutual self-disclosure

IV. Bystander Intervention/ AltruismDiffusion of ResponsibilitySocial Exchange TheoryReciprocity NormSocial Responsibility Norm

Social Relations 18-4

V. PeacemakingSuperordinate Goals (Sherif Camp Study P767, “Remember the Titans”)GRIT – “conciliatory gesture”

Social Relations 18-4

Please copy the following questions and answer them in your notebook— text ref p729-734

Why do we become friends with some people but not with others? (Hint: 3 factors)

Does our love for a partner remain the same as time passes?

Social Relations- Attractiveness Mere Exposure Effect

repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of them “Familiarity breeds fondness”

Conceptions of attractiveness vary by culture

Social Relations Passionate Love

an aroused state of intense positive absorption in another usually present at the beginning of a love relationship

Companionate Love deep affectionate attachment we feel for those with whom our lives are

intertwined, “mutual self-disclosure”

Social Relations Equity

a condition in which people receive from a relationship in proportion to what they give to it

Self-Disclosure revealing intimate aspects of oneself to others

Altruism unselfish regard for the welfare of others

Social RelationsCog Comp 1. Preocc w/ partner (5,19,21) 2. Idelaization of the other or the relnshp (7,9,15) 3. Desire to know the other and be known (10,22)Emo Comp 1. Attraction to other, esp sexual (16,18,29) 2. Neg feelings when things go awry (2,8,20,28,30) 3. Longing for reciprocity (14) 4. Desire for comp union (11,12,23,27) 5. Physio Arousal (3,13,17,26)Beh Comp 1. Actions toward det the other’s feelings (24) 2. Studying the other person (4) 3. Service to the other (6,25)

Social Relations 18-5

Social Relations: Altruism, Bystander Intervention, Darley and Latane, Kitty Genovese Case, Bystander Effect, Social Exchange Theory, Peacemaking-Superordinate Goals, GRIT

14. Describe and explain the bystander effect, and explain altruistic behavior in terms of social

exchange theory and social norms.15. Discuss effective ways of encouraging peaceful cooperation and reducing social conflict.

Social Relations

Bystander Effect tendency for any given

bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present

<<Kitty Genovese>>Diffusion of Responsibility

Social Relations The decision-making process for bystander intervention

Social Relations Social Exchange Theory

the theory that our social behavior is an exchange process, the aim of which is to maximize benefits and minimize costs

>>presumes that self-interest underlies all human interaction Well, why do we help when there is no benefit? Social expectations (norms) influence helping Reciprocity norm, social responsibility norm, etc

Superordinate Goals shared goals that override differences among people and require their

cooperation (reduce prejudice) (Remember the Titans)

Social Relations

Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-reduction (GRIT) a strategy designed to decrease international tensions

one side announces recognition of mutual interests and initiates a small conciliatory act

opens door for reciprocation by other party “conciliatory gestures” open the communication