R THINK Psychology E © 2010 - Pearson Education...a “baby-face bias” that causes people to view...

www.pearsonhighered.com

THINK Psychology© 2010

Baird

ISBN13: 9780205687381

ISBN10: 0205687385

S A M P L E C H A P T E RThe pages of this Sample Chapter mayhave slight variations in final published form.

SA

MP

LE

CH

AP

TE

R

Visit www.pearsonhighered.com/replocator to contact your local Pearson representative.

Chapter begins on next page >>

Psychology_CH14.qxd 11/28/08 7:29 PM 00

20

1

QBlindsided!That was one word tossed around water coolers

nationwide when Survivor: Micronesia star and all-

around alpha male Ozzy Lusth was betrayed by his

teammates and voted off the island in the early

2008 edition of the perennially popular reality tele-

vision show. Ozzy believed he could trust his fellow

castaways, but audiences across the country

watched delightedly as those same castaways

plotted among themselves to get Ozzy off the

show. It wasn’t all gloom and doom for Ozzy,

though: Fans were equally as fascinated by his

romantic relationship with teammate Amanda

Kimmel as by his surprisingly early ousting.

Why would Americans—or anyone, for that

matter—be so eager to keep tabs on the inter-

personal relationships of complete strangers?

Survivor, a member of reality TV’s old guard, has

been joined by a slew of other shows that exam-

ine people’s “real-life” interactions through the

lenses of romance (The Bachelor), world travel

(The Amazing Race), pop-star potential

(American Idol), and even weight loss (The

Biggest Loser). The popularity of shows like these

has waxed and waned over the years, but our

obsession with reality TV seems here to stay:

These days, it’s hard to flip through the channels

without tripping over a Dancing with the Stars clip

or a Top Chef marathon.

Are we voyeurs? Maybe, but that’s not the

entire story. In 2005, researchers Randall L. Rose

and Stacy Wood found that the draw of reality TV

has more to do with how we imagine ourselves

than how we imagine others. Reality TV shows

create a “hyperauthenticity” that gives viewers the

chance to imagine themselves in certain situations

and work out how they would react in the same

situations. When we watch Survivor or The

Amazing Race, we find ourselves identifying with

the participants, sharing their values, and trying to

understand the social dynamics of the group. In

other words, we act as budding social psycholo-

gists: We try to figure out what makes other peo-

ple tick by observing their daily interactions, and

we occasionally manage to learn something about

our own interactions in the process.

14

WHAT IS SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY?WHAT COGNITIVE PROCESSES UNDERLIESOCIAL BEHAVIOR?HOW DOES SOCIAL INFLUENCE AFFECT OURTHOUGHTS AND ACTIONS?HOW ARE SOCIAL RELATIONS INFLUENCED BYPSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENA?

CHAPTER

<<< Survivor contestants

battled for a reward in a 2008

episode of the perennially

popular TV series. Are reality

television shows’ high ratings

fueled by viewers’ fascination

with human social behavior?

What—if anything—can

shows like Survivor teach us

about group interactions,

peer pressure, and other

aspects of social psychology?

Psychology_CH14.qxd 11/28/08 7:30 PM Page 201

Social psychologist is a psychologist whostudies how the thoughts, emotions, and behavior ofindividuals influence and are influenced by interac-tions between people.

Social perception is the process through whicha person understands and categorizes the behaviorof others.

Attribution theory states that a person under-stands other people by attributing their behavior eitherto their internal dispositions or their external situations.

Attribution is a claim about the cause of a person’sbehavior.

Dispositional attribution is an attributionbased on a person’s personality or characteristics.

Situational attribution is an attribution basedon a person’s situation or environment.

Covariation principle is a process of attributionin which behavior is observed based on three char-acteristics: the behavior’s distinctiveness, it’s consis-tency, and consensus.

Fundamental attribution error (FAE) is aphenomenon in which people make an attributionbased on character, even when they know that thebehavior is situational.

Preexisting schema is a set of ideas or beliefs about others that leads a person to perceiveothers in a way that conforms with that person’sexpectations.

Chap

ter

142

02

Foundations of SocialPsychologyHuman beings may be individuals, but we are allindividuals within a group. Social psychologistsstudy how the thoughts, emotions, and behaviorof individuals influence and are influenced by inter-actions between people. Our interactions withothers (and sometimes with ourselves) depend toa great extent on our social perception, theprocess through which we understand and cate-gorize the behavior of others.

ATTRIBUTION THEORYThe popularity of reality TV probably wouldn’tsurprise psychologist Fritz Heider. He believedthat we are all “naive scientists,” naturally inter-ested in analyzing other people’s personalitiesand attitudes. According to Heider’s attributiontheory, we understand the behavior of othersby attributing their behavior either to theirinternal dispositions or their external situations(1958). Whether you think that American Idoljudge Simon Cowell behaves rudely becausehe’s naturally ill-tempered or because he thinksthat acting nasty will land him in the limelight,

you are making an attribution, a claim aboutthe cause of his behavior.

When you attribute a person’s behavior tohis or her personality or characteristics, youare making a dispositional attribution.Alternatively, when you attribute behavior toexternal factors such as the person’s situationor environment, you’re making a situationalattribution. When Senator John McCain’seconomic advisor, Phil Graham, dismissed therecent economic downturn and called the UnitedStates “a nation of whiners,” he made a disposi-tional attribution about Americans’ characteristicsand personalities. When Senators Obama andMcCain rebuked Mr. Graham by saying that“it isn’t whining” to complain about “real difficul-ties,” they made a situational attribution by claim-ing that Americans’ behavior is caused by envi-ronmental factors rather than internal personalitytraits (Associated Press, 2008).

Often, we don’t have enough informationabout people to determine why they act the waythey do. Since we can’t read other people’sminds, we try to compensate by observing theirbehavior in a variety of situations and environ-ments. Our observations are based on threecharacteristics: the behavior’s distinctiveness(Is the behavior specific to a situation?), its con-sistency (Does the person usually behave this

way?), and consensus (Do other people behavesimilarly in similar situations?). We can then useour observations to draw conclusions aboutwhy people act the way they do. This processof attribution is known as the covariationprinciple (Kelley, 1967).

The Fundamental Attribution ErrorBoth personal characteristics and external fac-tors play an important role in determining ouractions, but it turns out that most people tend toattribute behavior to character rather than thesituation. Social psychologist Lee Ross (1977)has dubbed this phenomenon the fundamentalattribution error (FAE). Amazingly, studies haveshown that even when people know that asituation has actually caused a certain behavior,they still make a dispositional attribution.Participants who were told that an experimentcollaborator had been instructed to behavecoldly or warmly toward them still persisted inbelieving that the behavior reflected the collabo-rator’s real personality (Napolitan & Goethals,1979). Of course, the attributions that we makeabout other people can have significant conse-quences for our own behavior: If your friendstands you up at the movie theater, you mightattribute her behavior to thoughtlessness or cru-elty and call her to leave a nasty message, not

realizing that she’s been delayedbecause of a parent’s illness.

Bias in AttributionSince we don’t have a lot ofinformation to go on when wemake conclusions about other

people, we take shortcuts byusing our prior knowledge,personal beliefs, and biasesto make assumptions aboutstrangers. We all have

preexisting schemata, sets ofideas or beliefs about

• • •

•••

Whiners or hard workers? Although we do ourbest to understand others’ behavior, we can’t

always truly know what people are thinking.

>>

>


Although we know intellectually that appear-ances can be deceiving, we often subconsciouslybase our opinions about people on their physicalappearance. An attractiveness bias leads us torate physically attractive people as more intelli-gent, competent, sociable, and sensitive thantheir less attractive counterparts (Eagly et al.,1991; Feingold, 1992; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986).And in both the United States and Korea, there isa “baby-face bias” that causes people to viewbaby-faced adults as more naive, honest, help-less, kind, and warm. This bias can even helpbaby-faced adults win in small-claims court(Zebrowitz & McDonald, 1991). As anyone whoadores babies and puppies probably knows,humans instinctively respond to infantfeatures with compassion and care(Lorenz, 1943).

CONSTRUCTING SOCIAL REALITYWe may make dis-positional attribu-tions when we judgeother people’sbehavior, butwhen it comes tojudging our own behavior, we tendto be a little kinder: We often show aself-serving bias that causes us toattribute our failures to external eventsand our successes to our personalcharacteristics and skills (Gilovich,1991). When we get into a car accident orget rejected from a team, we keep our self-esteem intact by placing the blameon the other drivers on the road orthe obviously inept coach.

In George Bernard Shaw’splay Pygmalion (and the musical

20

3

others that lead us to perceive people in a waythat conforms with our expectations. For exam-ple, someone who believes that athletes aregenerally not as intelligent as non-athletes proba-bly won’t perceive the school’s best football play-er as an academic superstar, even though thatfootball player may graduate with honors and goon to receive a doctorate in astrophysics.

version, My Fair Lady), arrogant linguist ProfessorHenry Higgins demonstrates that he can pass aLondon flower girl off as an aristocrat simply bychanging the way she speaks. The Pygmalioneffect, named after Shaw’s play, describes peo-ple’s tendency to behave in accordance withothers’ expectations: If you expect someone tobe an aristocrat, she will behave in an aristocraticmanner. The Pygmalion effect is one type ofself-fulfilling prophecy, or a belief that causesitself to become true.

Social psychologists have noticed that thesebeliefs can be particularly powerful in the class-room. In one study, Robert Rosenthal told teach-ers at a Boston elementary school that certainstudents would bloom and show great progressin the school year. As a result, these randomlychosen students raised their IQ scores by 10 to20 points (1974). Believing in the students’ abili-ties, teachers encouraged them and expectedmore from them, producing a marked effect onstudent performance. This result is one exampleof behavioral expectation confirmation(Snyder, 1984), a phenomenon that enables us toinfluence other people to behave in accordancewith our expectations. Behavioral expectationconfirmation was at work in a study in which par-ticipants were told to choose a question to ask ashy person. Most of the participants chose ques-tions that would confirm that person’s shyness,such as “What factors make it hard for you toreally open up to people?” and “What do you dis-like about loud parties?” (Snyder & Swann, 1978).

Social CognitionResearch in social cognition focuses on theunderlying processes, such as attention andmemory, that make social behavior possible. Aswe expand our knowledge about the biology ofthe brain, social cognitive neuroscience hasbecome increasingly important as a way tounderstand these processes. Biological struc-tures and processes in the brain help us navigateour social environment, whether we’re recogniz-ing a friend’s face in a crowd, making determina-tions about a person’s age or race, or feeling

empathy for others.

PERCEPTION OF SOCIALCUES: FACIALRECOGNITIONWhen you meet a per-son on the street, youcan easily recognize thatperson as a friend orstranger. Just by looking

at that person’s face, you can probably tellwhat type of mood she’s in and how she mightfeel about you. Face recognition forms an inte-gral part of our social interactions. Whiledebate in neuroscience rages about localized

and generalized brain function,recent studies have shown that thefusiform face area, an area on theunderside of the brain where theoccipital lobe meets the temporal

So

cia

l Psyc

ho

log

y

Attractiveness bias is the tendency for a per-son to rate physically attractive people as moreintelligent, competent, sociable, and sensitive thantheir less attractive counterparts.

Self-serving bias is the tendency for a personto attribute his or her failures to external events andhis or her successes to personal characteristicsand skills.

Pygmalion effect is the tendency for people tobehave in accordance with others’ expectations.

Self-fulfilling prophecy is a belief that causesitself to become true.

Behavioral expectation confirmation is aphenomenon that enables a person to influenceother people to behave in accordance with his orher expectations

Social cognition refers to underlying processes,such as attention and memory, that make socialbehavior possible.

Fusiform face area is an area of the visual cortexthat specifically responds to and recognizes faces.

•••

•••”“We often show a self-serving

bias that causes us to attrib-ute our failures to externalevents and our successes toour personal characteristicsand skills (Gilovich, 1991).

Several parts of the brain are activeduring the face-recognition process.

<<

<

Frontopolarcortex

Hippocampus

Lateral temporalneocortex

Superior temporalsulcus

Right inferior parietal

Posterior cingulate

Temporal poleFusiform face area


“2

04

lobe, plays an essential role in face recognition(Kanwisher et al., 1997). When we recognize aface, the fusiform face area becomes activeand sends messages to the lateral temporalneocortex, where neurons specifically linked toface recognition fire (Gross & Sergent, 1992).The temporal pole at the back of the temporallobe connects the visual information to emo-tional association (Olson et al., 2007). Finally,the hippocampus retrieves memories neces-sary for recognition (Rissman et al., 2008).These reciprocal exchanges of informationbetween different areas of the brain happen soquickly that we can instantly distinguish afamiliar face from an unfamiliar one. Peoplewith damage to the ventral region of the tem-poral lobe have difficulty processing informationabout facial features. This condition, known asprosopagnosia, prevents people from recog-nizing faces; however, these people can usuallyrecognize facial expressions of emotion. Often,

Chap

ter

14

Can we learn about people’s racial biasesby observing their biological reactions? Asrecently as 2000 and 2003, researchers demon-strated how white participants asked to look atunfamiliar African American faces revealed anunconscious negative bias (Phelps et al., 2000;Richeson et al., 2003). When they looked atunfamiliar male African American faces, thoseparticipants who associated African Americanfaces with negative traits also showed astronger startle eye-blink response and greateramygdala activity than other participants did(Phelps et al., 2000). Since both amygdala activ-ity and startle eye-blink response indicate fear,unfamiliar male African American faces probablyevoked fear in these experiment participants.However, these results diverged completely fromthe participants’ conscious or professed positivebeliefs about African Americans, suggesting thatit’s possible for our biological responses to peo-ple to be at odds with our conscious, sociallycontrolled responses (Richeson et al., 2003).

MENTALIZINGIn order to empathize with others, neurologicallyspeaking, we must walk a mile in their shoes.Experiencing empathy means feeling for others,understanding their position, and wanting to helpthem. It involves mentalizing, or understandingthat our behavior and that of others reflects ourmental states: our thoughts, beliefs, and feelings.

The brain assists us in this type of socialcognition in several different ways. For example,

mirror neurons in thebrain fire both

when we per-form an

action andwhen we

people with prosopagnosia are able to identifytheir loved ones using information from theirvoices or the way that they walk and move.

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATIONWe often refer to social categories such as age,race, and gender, to make inferences about thepeople we meet. In fact, our brains are amaz-ingly speedy when it comes to processing infor-mation about social categories: Researchershave measured electrophysiological responsesin the brain and found that when we view facesof people of different ages and genders, ourbrains respond to these changing socialcategories in as little as 145 milliseconds(Mouchetant-Rostaing & Giard, 2003). While itmight take us a while to determine someone’spersonal qualities (such as compassion, intelli-

gence, or aggression) from his orher facial features, it usually

doesn’t take us long at all tocategorize that person byage, race, and gender.

”Social pressure hasnegative connotations,but can you think of anyways in which socialpressure might be apositive influence?

<<

<

Have you ever picked upa friend’s belly laugh orfavorite figure of speechwithout realizing whatyou were doing? Youweren’t just being acopycat:When wemimic others, we arebetter able to under-stand what those othersare feeling and thinking.


20

5

watch others performing that same action, help-ing us relate our actions and intentions to thoseof others (Ferrari et al., 2005). We also have themental flexibility to put ourselves in someoneelse’s position and attempt to see things fromhis or her perspective. The brain’s medial pre-frontal cortex contributes to the self-awarenessand self-regulation necessary to look at theworld from another person’s point of view(Decety & Moriguchi, 2007).

Social InfluenceA presidential candidate asks for your vote; ananimated gecko on television wants you to buyhis company’s car insurance; you want a friend tocome out with you after work although she feelsexhausted—every day we encounter and exertforms of social influence, or behavioral control.Closely related to the concept of social influenceis social pressure, the real or imagined psycho-logical forces that others exert over us throughtheir example, judgments, and demands. Socialpressure comes in too many forms to count, butwhen you face it, it can be hard to resist.

HEDONIC, APPROVAL, ANDACCURACY MOTIVES“Call now!” the TV commercial begs you. “We’lleven throw in an extra set of steak knives!” Thistantalizing bargain is an example of one type ofsocial influence called a hedonic motive, apleasurable incentive or reward for acting in acertain way. Not all hedonic motives are as excit-ing as free steak knives, however: We can alsobe hedonically motivated by the threat of pain ifwe fail to act a certain way. (The traffic fine thatdoubles if you fail to pay it by a specific date isone such example.)

The approval motive, or the desire to beaccepted by our peers, can also convince us totake action. Our love of social acceptance isn’tsuperficial; in fact, being well-liked by othershelps us survive. Research has found that socialacceptance actually boosts our health, whileisolation and loneliness can make us more vul-nerable to illness (Pressman et al., 2005).

CONTAGIOUS BEHAVIORAs Elvis and Cher impersonators in Las Vegasknow, human beings cannot help imitatingeach other. Even in countries like the UnitedStates, where individuality and independenceare strong cultural values, there’s a streak ofimitation: When Michelle Obama appeared ona daytime talk show in a black-and-white flo-ral dress, for example, the dress sold out instores. But imitation isn’t always a consciouschoice. Take for example the chameleoneffect, our unconscious mimicry of other peo-ple’s expressions, behaviors, and voice tones(Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Have you ever

>>> During thePresidential campaign,Michelle Obama’sfashion statement onThe View was copiedby hundreds ofwomen. How mightimitating others facili-tate social behavior?

Prosopagnosia is a condition caused bydamage to the ventral region of the temporal lobein which a person is unable to recognize faces.

Mentalizing is a person’s understanding that hisor her behavior and that of others reflects a per-son’s mental states

Social influence is behavioral control.

Social pressure consists of real or imaginedpsychological forces that people exert over othersthrough their example, judgments, and demands.

Hedonic motive is a pleasurable incentive orreward for acting in a certain way.

Approval motive is a person’s desire to beaccepted by his or her peers.

Accuracy motive is a person’s desire to be cor-rect or accurate.

Chameleon effect refers to a person’s uncon-scious mimicry of other people’s expressions,behaviors, and voice tones.

•••

•••

”“

Since most of us don’t enjoy beingwrong, the accuracy motive, or our desire tobe correct or accurate, can have a strong pullon our behavior. If you’re in a group of peoplewho are discussing their shared belief that thegovernment should support the developmentof sustainable, renewable energy, you mightlisten to their opinions and decide to jump onthe renewable-energy bandwagon becauseyou’ve been persuaded that their position isthe correct one.

It appears that otherpeople have a certainamount of influence onour own emotionalstates, to the extent thatcatching a glimpse of asad-looking personcould put a slight frownon your face.

So

cia

l Psyc

ho

log

y


Chap

ter

142

06

picked up a friend’s belly laugh or favoritefigure of speech without realizing what youwere doing? You weren’t just being a copy-cat: When we mimic others, we are betterable to understand what those others arefeeling and thinking.

If you’ve ever met someone with “infec-tious enthusiasm,” you know that emotions,like behaviors, can be contagious. Emotionalcontagion happens quickly and unconscious-ly. In fact, when researchers ran a study inwhich they flashed stimuli of emotional facesin front of participants, they discovered thatalthough the participants were not conscious-ly aware that they had seen facial expres-sions, the participants’ faces took on thesame expressions that they had unconscious-ly processed from the images (Dimberg et al.,

20

6

Conditions that

insecurity

feelings ofincompetenceor

dissenters

aunanimousgroup

withoutof

people

a group

at leastthree

being

admiredamong

people

Conformity is a principle that requires people toadjust their behavior or thinking to match a groupstandard.

Normative social influence is influence thatdraws on a person’s desire for others’ approval andhis or her longing to be part of a group.

Informational social influence is influenceexerted by information that others give a person.

Suggestibility is a person’s susceptibility to theopinions of others.

Bystander effect is a phenomenon in which thelikelihood that a person requiring help receives itfrom an individual bystander is inversely proportionalto the number of bystanders present.

Reference group consists of those people towhom a person feels affiliated.

•••

•••

2000). It appears that other people have acertain amount of influence on our own emo-tional states, to the extent that catching aglimpse of a sad-looking person could put aslight frown on your face.

approval and our longing to be part of a group,can cause us to conform to the norms, or socialexpectations about attitudes and behaviors, thata group values. Informational social influence,influence exerted by information that others give

CONFORMITYWhile imitation may be the sincerest form offlattery, conformity requires adjusting ourbehavior or thinking to conform to a groupstandard. We can feel the pressure to conformin a wide variety of situations, but certain con-ditions facilitate conformity:

Whenever people conform by buyingthe latest style of jeans, joining a religious com-munity, or ostracizing an outsider, social influ-ence is at work. Normative social influence,influence that draws on our desire for others’

us, can shed new light on the objective natureof an event or situation. Normative social influ-ence appeals to the approval motive and ourdesire to be liked, while informational socialinfluence appeals to the accuracy motive andour desire to obtain correct information.

Asch’s Conformity StudiesRenowned social psychologist Solomon Aschshowed how suggestibility, or susceptibility tothe opinions of others, can cause people toconform (1940, 1956). When Asch asked

”“When Asch asked experiment participants to

match the length of a stimulus line with thelength of one of three other lines, they had noproblem performing this matching task correctly.When they were asked to perform the same taskin a group with experiment confederates whokept offering the wrong answer, however,participants changed their answers to conformwith those of the group one third of the time.


20

7

Influence Conformity

response

alack ofprior

commitmentto a

particular standards

a culture thatencourages

adherence to social

relevance

the needto makediffi cultdecisions ofhighpersonal

settinga public

So

cia

l Psyc

ho

log

y

experiment participants to match the length ofa stimulus line with the length of one of threeother lines, they had no problem performingthis matching task correctly. When they wereasked to perform the same task in a group withexperiment confederates who kept offering thewrong answer, however, participants changedtheir answers to conform with those of thegroup one third of the time. Both normative andinformational social influence may have played

a role in these results: Normative social influ-ence may have caused participants to changetheir answers to match the group’s answers,and informational social influence may havemade the participants think that their originalperceptions were factually incorrect: After all, iften other people say two lines are the sameand you are the only one who thinks the linesare different, it seems very likely that you’vemissed something that everyone else has seen.

(For more information about Asch’s experiment,see Chapter 2.)

The Bystander EffectWe don’t only conform to follow social norms inmundane places like the school cafeteria or thebasketball bleachers. In emergency situations,socially accepted rules of behavior particularlybecome significant. After the 1964 rape andmurder of Kitty Genovese, which allegedly tookplace in front of 38 witnesses, numerous studieshave illustrated what’s become known as thebystander effect: In a situation where someonerequires help, the greater the number ofbystanders present, the less likely any individualbystander is to help the person in need. Darleyand Latané performed studies that suggestedthat most people intervene to help anotherperson having an epileptic seizure when theybelieve they are the only person who can hear—and help—the seizing individual (1968). If theybelieve that other people can also hear the per-son in need, they are less likely to help. Peoplealso look to their reference group, those withwhom they feel affiliated, to gauge how tobehave. If they see people behaving indifferently,they tend to do the same, but if even one personchooses to help, the others will also tend to

<<< Which of the threelines on the rightmatches the length ofthe line on the left?


20

8

“teachers” and instructed them to deliver anelectric shock to learners for every wronganswer. The “learners,” actually experiment con-federates, voiced discomfort, pain, and evenagony, but most of the “teachers” continueddelivering progressively stronger shocks, despitehaving said explicitly that they would stop assoon as the learner experienced any discomfort.Even after the “learner’s” voice became silent,suggesting that he had been severely injured bythe shocks, the experimenter ordered partici-pants to continue administering shocks, andalthough many of the participants seemed veryuncomfortable about it, a surprisingly large num-ber of them dutifully followed orders. In fact, 65%of the participants showed total obedience byadministering “lethal” shocks at the maximumlevel of 450 volts.

What allowed typical college students tobehave like sadistic torturers? Milgram deter-mined that certain conditions encouraged partic-ipants to follow commands. For example, wegenerally follow the norm of obeying legitimateauthority figures such as the university psycholo-gists who directed the experiment. The experi-menter seemed self-assured and acceptedresponsibility for the outcome of the experiment,making participants feel less responsible for theiractions. The experimenter also asked the partici-pants to increase the shocks incrementally; once

participants had agreed to give the “learner” ashock of 60 volts, it became more difficult forthem to refuse to administer a 70-volt shock.Participants were placed in a separate roomfrom the “learner,” increasing their psychologicaldistance from the repercussions of their actions,and participants had no alternative models ofbehavior to follow—in other words, all they’dseen anyone do was comply with the experi-menter’s requests, so they didn’t have a modelfor refusing to comply. Finally, demand charac-teristics, or the cues in the experimental settingthat influenced participants’ beliefs about theirexpected behavior, most likely played a role inparticipants’ decisions to obey authority.

Milgram noticed that certain conditionscreated the highest levels of obedience:

Strengths andWeaknesses of Conformityand Obedience

StudiesConformity and obedience

studies likeAsch’s andMilgram’s havegiven us

valuable insightinto humans’ suscep-

tibility to social influenceand provided information

about why wesometimes acceptfalse beliefs orcapitulate to

cruelty. However,Milgram’s experiments

also raised a number of criticisms. Today, ethicalconcerns about lasting damage suffered by par-ticipants coerced to harm others would haveprevented these studies from being conducted.

Chap

ter

14

follow. As in Nazi Germany, total situations—situations in which people are isolated fromalternative viewpoints and given strict rewardsand punishments from leaders—also prompt people to followsocial norms closely.

OBEDIENCEStanley Milgramand Obedience toAuthorityThe genocides inCambodia, Bosnia,Rwanda, and Darfurhave joined theHolocaust in NaziGermany as testaments tothe fact that ordinaryhuman beings canperform extraordi-narily inhuman acts.To understand howand why people obeyimmoral and unethicalcommands, Stanley Milgram conducted experi-ments that became some of the most famousand infamous in social psychology (1963, 1974).In 20 experiments, Milgram cast 1000 people as

Total situation is a situation in which people areisolated from alternative viewpoints and given strictrewards and punishments from leaders.

Compliance is a change in a person’s behaviorthat occurs in response to a direct request.

Cognitive dissonance is a disconnect betweena person’s internal attitudes and his or her externalbehavior.

Lowball technique encourages compliance byoffering an attractive deal, only to change the terms ofthe deal later.

Bait-and-switch technique encourages peo-ple to comply with an attractive offer but substitutesthat offer with a less attractive option once the personhas agreed.

Foot-in-the-door technique involves askingpeople to comply with a small request and then mak-ing a much larger request, to raise funds.

Shared identity is a person’s feeling that he orshe is similar to other people in thought, feeling, andbehavior.

Norm of reciprocity is a socialized norm thatinvolves a person’s tendency to desire to returnfavors.

Door-in-the-face technique is a procedure forgaining compliance that involves making a largerequest and then, when that request is refused,making a smaller request that seems reasonable incomparison.

•••

•••Conditions that Infl uence Obedience

2 Person giving orders is a

legitimate authority figure supported by a prestigious

institution.

Victim is depersonalized or kept at a distance.

3

1

Person giving orders is in physical

proximity to the participant.

1

2

7

4

5An intermediary

bystander is present.

6Participant is

affected by normative and informational

influence.

4Participant does not

have access to models of defiance.

7Participant’s

behavior is an ingrained habit.

3 5

6

”“We don’t always behave

the way others wouldlike us to, but we makeboth small and large ges-tures of compliance allthe time.Why are we sowilling to change ourbehaviors because ofother people’s requests?


20

9

(It’s worth noting, however, that 84% of partici-pants in Milgram’s experiments felt glad to havetaken part in the study, and only 2% regretted it(Milgram, 1964; Errera, 1972).) Critics also ques-tion the degree to which experimental resultsexplain real-world crimes. It’s possible that theparticipants’ belief (warranted or not) that theexperimenters would never allow them toseverely harm others allowed the participants tofollow instructions more easily (Orne & Holland,1968). People who genuinely and purposefullyharm others, however, obviously hold no suchbelief. While the scope of Milgram’s results maybe limited to the lab, his experiments do offer usclues about how ordinary people can obeyorders to commit genocide and mass murder.

COMPLIANCEIf you wanted your friend toturn down his obnoxiously loudstereo or cheer up about hisfavorite football team’s poorperformance, you would needto figure out how to get yourfriend to comply with yourwishes. Compliance is achange in a person’s behaviorthat occurs in response to adirect request. We don’talways behave the way otherswould like us to, but we makeboth small and large gesturesof compliance all the time.Why are we so willing tochange our behaviors becauseof other people’s requests?

CognitiveDissonanceLet’s say you agreed to see a movie with friendseven though you had no interest in watching atroop of robot overlords conquering the Earth. Ifyou’ve ever experienced a disconnect betweenyour internal attitudes and your external behav-ior, you’ve experienced cognitive dissonance.Social psychologist Leon Festinger (1957)coined the term, and he and others have shownthat our desire to counteract cognitive disso-nance can play a major role in the phenomenonof compliance: We often comply with requestsin order to make our actions match our attitudes(or vice versa).

In what has become a classic study insocial psychology, Festinger and his colleaguesasked participants to undertake incrediblyboring tasks such as putting spools into atray and turning square pegs a quarter-turn ata time. The experimenter then asked eachparticipant to tell the next participant that the

tasks were enjoyable, intriguing, and exciting.Half of the participants were promised $20 inexchange for telling this lie; the other partici-pants were offered $1. Festinger and his fellowresearchers discovered that, after the partici-pants had lied to their peers and receivedtheir money, the participants who had received$1 rated the tasks they’d performed as signifi-cantly more interesting than did the partici-pants who had received $20. Festinger usedhis theory of cognitive dissonance to explainthese results: If you say something you don’tbelieve, but you don’t have sufficient justifica-tion (such as a $20 bill) for saying it, you’relikely to change your beliefs in order to reducethe effect of cognitive dissonance (Festinger &Carlsmith, 1959).

technique encourages people to comply withan attractive offer but substitutes that offer witha less attractive option once the person hasagreed. During campaign season, a politicianmight promise not to raise taxes, but whenshe’s in office, she may choose to keep taxeslow only for people making a certain amount ofmoney. In order to reduce cognitive disso-nance, the people who complied with thepolitician’s request for votes may convincethemselves that the politician isn’t breakingher promise.

Charities and public television stationsthat ask for small initial contributions and thenfollow up with larger and larger requests relyon the foot-in-the-door technique, a proce-dure that involves asking people to comply

with a small request and then mak-ing a much larger request, to raisefunds. Once we’ve given $10 toour favorite local radio stationbecause we strongly believe incommunity-supported radio, it canfeel inconsistent not to give the sta-tion the $100 they ask for in theirnext e-mail, so we adjust ouractions to match our attitudes.

We often comply in order toreduce cognitive dissonance, butthere are several other factors thatencourage compliance. Forinstance, we tend to comply mosteasily with those with whom wefeel a shared identity or withwhom we’ve experienced a friendlyconversation. On shows likeSurvivor, contestants who’veformed strong alliances are oftenable to convince the members of

their alliance to behave in a certain way or fol-low a specific voting pattern when it comestime to vote someone “off the island.” Ofcourse, when one contestant helps another,she tends to expect help in return. A socializednorm, the norm of reciprocity, means that wewant to return favors, so people are more likelyto comply with requests from others who havegranted their requests in the past.

If a Girl Scout knocked on your doorand asked you to buy 100 boxes of cookies,you’d probably refuse. But if she then said,“Okay, would you consider buying just threeboxes?” you might comply with her request.This particular Girl Scout used the door-in-the-face technique, a procedure for gainingcompliance that involves making a largerequest and then, when that request isrefused, making a smaller request thatseems reasonable in comparison.

So

cia

l Psyc

ho

log

y”

“It’s often all too easy to influencehuman behavior, and people with avested interest in our compliancehave come up with several time-honored methods for convincingpeople to act in certain ways. Creditcard companies, for instance, oftenuse the lowball technique, whichencourages compliance by offeringan attractive deal, only to changethe terms of the deal later.

Motivations for ComplianceIt’s often all too easy to influence humanbehavior, and people with a vested interest inour compliance have come up with severaltime-honored methods for convincing peopleto act in certain ways. Credit card companies,for instance, often use the lowball technique,which encourages compliance by offering anattractive deal, only to change the terms of thedeal later. You might agree to sign up for acredit card that offers no monthly fees throughJuly, only to find out on August 1 that yourmonthly fees have skyrocketed. Since you’vemade a commitment to the credit card by thatpoint, however, you’re more likely to continueto use the card.

Advertisers and politicians use the dis-comfort created by cognitive dissonance to getpeople to try a new product or vote for a ballotinitiative. For example, the bait-and-switch


Chap

ter

142

10

ATTITUDES AND ACTIONSAttitudes, our evaluative beliefs or opinions aboutpeople, objects, and ideas, fundamentally affectour behaviors. We have both explicit attitudes,beliefs or opinions that we hold consciously andcan report to others, and implicit attitudes,beliefs and opinions that we can’t (or won’t)report and that automatically influence ouractions. All attitudes have three component parts:affect (our emotions or feelings), cognition (ourthoughts), and behavior. Our feelings, thoughts,and behaviors work together to shape our atti-

tudes. Attitudes can be formed inmany ways, including through classi-cal conditioning (see Chapter 11)and through the acceptance of

social norms.

Political elections can provide a wealth ofexamples of both explicit and implicit attitudes. Ifyou have an explicit attitude about a candidate,you have consciously held opinions about himor her: Maybe, during the 2008 presidentialcampaign, you liked Barack Obama because ofhis positions on the economy and the environ-ment, or maybe you disliked him because hissocial values differed from yours. Your implicitattitudes during the 2008 election season prob-ably matched your explicit attitudes, but maybeyou decided to consciously fight a lifelong devo-tion to one political party and vote for McCain orObama based on policy issues rather than onyour gut instincts.

In a 2008 study of Italian politics,researchers at the University of Paduadiscovered that implicit political attitudes candetermine voters’ behavior on election day.Voters who declared themselves “undecided”had no explicit attitude about the candidates,but they often had

implicit attitudes about the candidates or theirpolitical parties, and these voters tended toultimately cast their ballots for the party theyimplicitly favored, even if they didn’t consciouslyprefer either party (Arcuri et al., 2008).

PERSUASIONSome attitudes that we hold are stronger thanothers, but nearly all attitudes are susceptible tochange. Persuasion, a deliberate effort tochange an attitude or behavior, is indigenous tomany areas of our lives, but it might help to con-sider it in one of its natural habitats: the court-room. Attorneys commonly use persuasive tech-niques to get jury members on their side. Thejury might be swayed through the central routeto persuasion, which involves paying carefulattention to strong, well-presented argumentsthat are personally relevant and that appeal toreason. Or they might be convinced through theperipheral route to persuasion, which involvesevaluating an argument based on tangentialcues rather than on the argument’s merits. Forexample, a juror might be persuaded by adefense attorney’s argument based on the attor-ney’s good looks or sunny disposition rather thanon the facts of the case. Emotional appeals canbe just as persuasive as appeals to reason, butthe former follow the peripheral route, while thelatter follow the central route. According to theelaboration-likelihood model (Petty &Cacioppo, 1986), we tend to be persuadedthrough the central route when our motivationand ability to understand and consider the per-suasive message is high. When our motivation islow, however, or when we need to reach a quickdecision and we don’t have time to thinkcritically, we’re more likely to be persuadedthrough the peripheral route.

When and where we learn information canalso affect our ability to be persuaded

by it. Our initial impressions are hard toshake, a phenomenon known as the

perseverance effect. If a teacher

Attitude is an evaluative belief or opinion about aperson, object, or idea.

Explicit attitude is a belief or opinion that a per-son holds consciously and can report to others.

Implicit attitude is a belief or opinion that a per-son can’t report and that will automatically influencehis or her actions.

Persuasion is a deliberate effort to change an atti-tude or behavior.

Central route is a path to persuasion that involvespaying careful attention to strong, well-presentedarguments that are personally relevant and thatappeal to reason.

Peripheral route is a path to persuasion thatinvolves evaluating an argument based on tangentialcues rather than on the argument’s merits.

Elaboration-likelihood model states thatpeople tend to be persuaded through the centralroute when their motivation and ability to understandand consider the persuasive message is high, whilethey are more likely to be persuaded by the peripher-al route when their motivation is low or when theyneed to make a quick decision.

Perseverance effect is a phenomenon in whichit is difficult for people to shake their initial impressions.

•••

••• ”

“Your implicit attitudesduring the 2008 elec-tion season probablymatched your explicitattitudes, but maybeyou decided to con-sciously fight a lifelongdevotion to one politi-cal party and vote forMcCain or Obamabased on policy issuesrather than on yourgut instincts.

<<< What explicitand implicit attitudes

might the American pub-lic have held aboutDemocratic candidatesBarack Obama and JoeBiden during the 2008presidential campaign?


21

1

receives a stellar first paper from his student, hecan probably be easily persuaded that the stu-dent’s subsequent work is of the highest calibereven though unbiased teachers may not holdthe same opinion of the student’s performance.The sleeper effect, which occurs when we for-get the unreliable source of a piece of informa-tion but remember the information itself andbelieve that it’s trustworthy, can also affect ourjudgment and our ability to be persuaded byfalse statements.

GROUP INFLUENCEGroups of people can influence individualbehavior in powerful ways. In fact, the merepresence of others can affect how well weperform a task. When we’re being observedby others, we perform better on easy tasksor ones we know well but worse on difficultor less familiar tasks (Guerin, 1986; Zajonc,1965). When people believe that their indi-vidual efforts don’t matter or that they arenot personally responsible because they areonly one member of a group, they tend toput less effort into a task, a phenomenoncalled social loafing (Latané, 1981; Jackson& Williams, 1988; Harkins & Szymanski,1989; Kerr & Bruun, 1983).

You would probably notstand up by yourself and cheerloudly at a sporting eventor concert, but you might do sovery easily as part of a largecheering crowd. Being part ofa group can make us feel lessrestrained and more aroused, aprocess of deindividuation thatallows us relinquish personalresponsibility and give ourselvesover to the group experience.

Group Interactions andMinority InfluenceThe strength of group influence means that themore members of the group discuss similaropinions, the more extreme their positionsbecome. This phenomenon, known as grouppolarization, strengthens resolve but can alsocreate more radical behavior. Group interac-tions can also lead to group think when groupmembers’ opinions become so uniform that alldissent becomes impossible. Such uniformityof opinion may have been responsible for theBay of Pigs operation in Cuba in 1961, whenthe members of the Kennedy administrationfelt so sure of themselves and their decisionsthat they authorized a botched attempt tooverthrow the government of Fidel Castro(Janis, 1982).

While social control can be very power-ful, committed individuals confident abouttheir viewpoints have the power to influencethe majority. Minority influence, the powerof a few people, allowed Gandhi to lead themovement for the independence of Indiaand civil rights leaders like Martin LutherKing Jr. to press for desegregation in theAmerican South.

Social RelationsEMOTIONAL FOUNDATIONSOF SOCIAL NATUREEmotions affect how we behave with others,and social situations affect our emotions.As social animals, our emotions link inextri-cably with the social situations in which wefind ourselves.

Ending a romantic relationship mayhurt, and having a migraine headache canbe very painful, but if you end a relationshipwhile you have a migraine headache, yourheadache will be even more intense. Atleast, that’s what researchers have found. Ifwe lose a close personal relationship or

membership in a group, we feel social pain.The pain of rejection or loss feels as real asphysical pain because it activates the sameareas in the brain, the anterior cingulatecortex and the anterior insula (Eisenbergeret al., 2003). If we happen to be experienc-ing physical pain, social pain will actuallymagnify our distress (Eisenberger &Lieberman, 2004).

Self-conscious emotions, such as guiltor shame, that relate to thoughts about our-selves and our own actions have importantfunctions in social relations (Tangney, 1999).As a motivator for relationship repair, guiltcan be an evolutionarily adaptive mechanismfor preserving social cohesion, although itcan be maladaptive if taken to extremes.Embarrassment motivates people to rectify

awkward situations, and thosewho show embarrassment seemto appear more likable (Keltner& Anderson, 2000; Semin &Manstead, 1982). Shame leadsto social withdrawal, especiallywhen someone’s failings havebeen publicly exposed. Noticehow rarely the disgraced formerNew York Governor Elliot Spitzerappears in public. His apparentabsence of guilt during thescandal did not help him repair

his relationship with New Yorkers, and hislack of embarrassment did not make himappear more likable.

PREJUDICEPrejudice is a negative learned attitudetoward particular people or things. Althoughthe detrimental effects of prejudice have beenwell documented, prejudice against individu-als because of race, ethnicity, gender, orother factors still persists. Although most ofus overtly deny having feelings of prejudice,many people still display prejudiced implicitattitudes. What causes this disconnectionbetween our outward beliefs and ouractions? Can well-intentioned, fair, consider-ate people still be unconsciously affected bypowerful stereotypes?

So

cia

l Psyc

ho

log

y

Sleeper effect is a phenomenon that occurswhen a person forgets the unreliable source of apiece of information but remembers the informationitself and believes that it’s trustworthy.

Social loafing is a phenomenon that occurswhen people believe that their individual efforts don’tmatter or that they are not personally responsiblebecause they are only one member of a group, sothey tend to put less effort into a task.

Deindividuation is a process that allows peoplein a group to relinquish personal responsibility andgive themselves over to the group experience.

Group polarization is a phenomenon in whichthe more members of a group discuss similar opin-ions, the more extreme their positions become.

Group think is a phenomenon in which groupmembers’ opinions become so uniform that alldissent becomes impossible.

Minority influence refers to the power of a fewpeople.

Social pain is the pain of rejection or loss broughton by losing a close personal relationship or member-ship in a group.

Self-conscious emotion is an emotion thatrelates to a person’s thoughts about himself or herselfand about his or her own actions.

•••

•••

”“Emotions affect how we behave

with others, and social situationsaffect our emotions.As social ani-mals, our emotions link inextricablywith the social situations in whichwe find ourselves.


Chap

ter

142

12

StereotypesIn and of themselves, stereotypes, or generalbeliefs about a group of people, can be usefulschemas for interpreting the world around us.They can help us make rapid determinationsabout an individual, saving us cognitive timeand energy. For example, if you see a manwearing a wedding ring and holding a baby,you might quickly intuit that the man is com-mitted, mature, and caring—all positivestereotypes associated with married fathers.While stereotypes might provide us with someuseful basic information, however, very oftenthey can lead us to draw false conclusionsand ultimately contribute to acts of prejudiceand discrimination. Stereotypes can be hardto disprove: When we hold stereotypes abouta certain group, we’re likely to discredit infor-mation that does not support those stereo-types. Thanks to the confirmation bias (seeChapter 10), we tend to selectively accept

only information that supports our precon-ceived views (Munro & Ditto, 1997).

The mere existence of negative stereo-types can be harmful. Those subject tostereotyping may not be able to perform aswell on tasks as they normally would becauseof stereotype threat, the knowledge thatthey must work against a negative stereotype(Steele & Aronson, 1995). For example,women who are aware of the stereotype thatwomen are not supposed to be good at mathand science may feel particularly pressured toperform well on a math test and disprove thestereotype, but the extra pressure they put onthemselves may actually hurt their perform-ance, leading them to inadvertently supportthe stereotype. Of course, a variety of otherfactors often contribute to the performance

gap between men and women in math andscience; stereotype threat alone is only part ofthe complex picture.

When people hold an explicitstereotype, they consciously adhere to aset of beliefs about a group of people. Butmany beliefs actually operate as implicitstereotypes, an unconscious set of mentalrepresentations that guide attitudes and behav-iors. Because of the way our implicit memoriesfunction, priming the mind with one conceptfacilitates the access of associated concepts.Tests have shown that while most people con-sciously believe that they are not racially preju-diced, many white students more quickly asso-ciate positive adjectives with white faces andnegative adjectives with black faces, suggest-ing that these students hold implicit negativestereotypes about black people. Black stu-dents tend to show the inverse preference(Fazio et al., 1995). The Implicit AssociationTest, developed by Mahzarin Banaji and TonyGreenwald to access implicit attitudes bymeasuring the time required to pair certainconcepts (such as “white” and “good”), hasalso revealed people’s implicit beliefs aboutrace and gender (Banaji & Greenwald, 1995;Greenwald et al., 1998, 2002).

DiscriminationThe racial segregation practiced in parts of theUnited States until the 1950s showed howprejudiced attitudes lead to discrimination,negative behavior toward a group of peopleand its members. In the landmark SupremeCourt case Brown v. Board of Education,Thurgood Marshall and other attorneysreferred to studies by social psychologistsKenneth and Mamie Clark as evidence forthe tremendously damaging effects of discrimi-nation. During the “doll test,” black childrenshowed an overt preference for white dolls,and when asked to color pictures of children,they chose white or yellow crayons (Clark &Clark, 1947). By showing how the “separatebut equal” education system fosters a senseof inferiority in children, the “doll test” helpedend segregation in the United States.

Racism is hardly the only prominent form ofdiscrimination. Unfortunately, in many countries,

Stereotype is a general belief about a groupof people.

Stereotype threat refers to a stereotypedgroup’s knowledge that they must work against anegative stereotype.

Explicit stereotype is a stereotype that isconsciously held.

Implicit stereotype is an unconscious set ofmental representations that guide attitudes andbehaviors.

Discrimination consists of negative behaviortoward a group of people and its members.

•••

•••

<<< How might stereo-type threat affect yourlife? How can it becombated?

”

“Tests have shown that

while most people con-

sciously believe that

they are not racially

prejudiced, many white

students more quickly

associate positive adjec-

tives with white faces

and negative adjectives

with black faces.


So

cia

l Psyc

ho

log

y2

13

discrimination is often con-ducted on the basis ofgender, religion, or sexualpreference, to name only afew categories.

Foundations of PrejudiceAs social animals, human beings tend to formgroups and derive some portion of their identityfrom these groups. They treat their own groupas the ingroup and favor their group positionsand members; those outside their group mightbe considered part of an outgroup (Tajfel, 1982;Wilder, 1981). When taken to extremes, theingroup and outgroup dichotomy can erupt intoviolence, as happens during a time of war oreven at sporting events when conflict eruptsbetween supporters of rival teams.

Prejudice also often has an emotionalbasis, and our feelings of fear and anger areparticularly likely to lead us toward discrimina-tion. When we’re frustrated by our own failings,we often look for scapegoats whom we canblame for our problems. Often, those scape-goats are outgroup members: After the attacksof September 11, 2001, for example, some

people’s fears and feel-ings of anger led them to

stereotype and act outagainst members of the

worldwide Muslim community.A number of cognitive processes help peo-

ple justify both their position at the “top of thefood chain” and their poor treatment of thosewho are worse off. For instance, the just-worldphenomenon leads us to believe that the worldis a fair place in which good people are reward-ed and bad people are punished. If this is reallythe case, we convince ourselves, then we mustbe doing well because we are good people,while those who are suffering are simply gettingwhat they deserve.

Reversing PrejudiceAlthough we might intuitively believe that con-tact between hostile groups should reduce prej-udice, mere exposure, or simple contactbetween two groups, does not usually reverseprejudice unless groups cooperate with eachother to achieve a common goal (Allport, 1954;Dovidio et al., 2003; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).This principle of cooperation also works to

soothe relationships in the classroom: In “jig-saw” classrooms, each student must manageone part of a project in order for the group tocomplete the entire assignment (Aronson &Gonzalez, 1988). Learning more about an out-group through friendship or collaborative effortscan make people more tolerant of the normsand customs of other groups, a process calleddeprovincialization.

AGGRESSIONWhat Causes AggressiveBehavior?Whether it occurs between warring nations,feuding first graders, or two Big Brother con-testants cooped up with each other for weekson end, any physical or verbal behavior intendedto harm others qualifies as aggression. Giventhe pervasiveness of aggression in animals, it’sno surprise that biology influences aggression.From an evolutionary perspective, we canexplain aggression as a quality that has devel-oped from a struggle for survival and resources.Aggression may also be influenced by genetics:If a child has a violent temper, his or her siblingsare likely to be aggressive, too (Miles & Carey,1997; Rowe et al., 1999). In the brain, theamygdala and other limbic structures help to ini-tiate aggression, and it’s likely that the frontallobes play a role in controlling aggression as well(Lewis et al., 1986).

Alcohol and violence are commonly linkedin the media, and it’s true that the biologicaleffects of alcohol can increase aggressivebehavior. People prone to aggression are morelikely to drink and become violent, and four outof ten violent crimes and three out of four casesof spousal abuse are committed by people whohave recently been drinking (White et al., 1993;Greenfeld, 1998) This is likely because alcohol is

Ingroup is a group that a person is part of.

Outgroup is a group containing those people out-side one’s own group.

Just-world phenomenon is a phenomenon inwhich people convince themselves that they aredoing well because they are good people, whilethose who are suffering are just getting what theydeserve.

Mere exposure consists of simple contactbetween two individuals or groups.

Deprovincialization is a process in whichlearning more about an outgroup through friendshipor collaborative efforts can make people more tolerantof the norms and customs of other groups.

Aggression is behavior intended to harm others.

•••

•••

BAD GOOD

People taking an Implicit Association Test mightbe asked to match African American faceswith the word “good.”

<<

<


Chap

ter

142

14

known to reduce inhibition by compromisingfrontal lobe function.

While some factors that influence aggres-sion are biological, others are linked to our envi-ronments and our external situations. Like manyother violent criminals, Albert DeSalvo, betterknown as the “Boston Strangler” who confessedto murdering 13 women in the Boston area dur-ing the early ‘60s, had been severely abused asa child. When humans and other animals experi-ence aversive events such as abuse, they tendto pay it forward (Berkowitz, 1983, 1989). Hotweather also seems to contribute to hot tem-pers, and a number of studies point to the influ-ence of uncomfortable heat in aggressive acts(Anderson & Anderson, 1984).Anyone who has experienced roadrage while stuck in traffic can agreewith the frustration-aggressionhypothesis that frustration occurswhen people feel blocked in obtain-ing their goals (Dollard et al., 1939).Unemployment also creates eco-nomic frustration so that violencerates increase as unemploymentrates rise, up to a given point. Afterthat, the general anxiety over jobloss supersedes aggressive feelings(Catalano et al., 1997, 2002).

Cultural ConstraintsCultural constraints about accept-able levels of aggression may con-trol how much aggression we feelfree to show. In one experiment,American children displayed moreverbal aggression in hypotheticalsituations of conflict than didJapanese children (Zahn-Waxler etal., 1996). Even within the UnitedStates, acceptable levels ofaggression vary regionally. Studiescomparing responses to insults inthe North and South revealed thatthe “culture of honor” prevalent inthe South meant that “even small disputesbecome contests for reputation and socialstatus” (Cohen et al., 1996; Nisbett & Cohen,1996). Norms of aggression can also be set

by models of aggression in everyday life.While there is no data to suggest that chil-dren’s exposure to violent TV programs andvideo games leads to violent behavior later inlife, the media and entertainment industriesdo provide numerous models of violence for

children (Bushman & Anderson, 2002;Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Real-lifemodels of violence seem to have more of animpact on behavior than do violent games ormovies: Children who have either experiencedor watched physical abuse often becomeviolent themselves (Berkowitz, 2003;Salzinger et al., 2006).

CONFLICTIn September 2008, a crowd of protesters out-side the Republican National Convention in St.Paul, Minnesota, clashed with police officers,who fired pepper spray, tear gas, and projec-tiles into the crowd in an attempt to make theprotesters leave the scene. This is just onerecent example of conflict, or a disparitybetween people’s or groups’ actions, goals, orideas. We tend to engage in conflict in pursuitof our own self-interests, but the “winners” of aconflict don’t always emerge from the fight in abetter position than the one they started in.Sometimes, conflicting parties engage in mutu-ally destructive behaviors, causing them to end

Frustration-aggression hypothesis statesthat frustration occurs when people feel blocked inobtaining their goals.

Conflict is the disparity between people’s orgroups’ actions, goals, or ideas.

•••

•••

What might cause some conflicts to becomephysically violent?

<<

<

“”

Real-life models of violenceseem to have more of animpact on behavior thando violent games ormovies: Children who haveeither experienced orwatched physical abuseoften become violent them-selves (Berkowitz, 2003;Salzinger et al., 2006).


So

cia

l Psyc

ho

log

y2

15

up in a social trap: As everyone tries to win,no one actually does.

The Psychology of GenocideOn July 21, 2008, Radovan Karadzic, theBosnian Serb president who presided overthe genocide in Bosnia, was arrested afterten years in hiding. Genocide, the system-atic destruction of one group by another,begins when living conditions become verystrained, as they did after the breakup ofCommunist regimes in Eastern Europe.Faced with economic, social, and politicaluncertainty, old ethnic conflicts resurfacedas Bosnian Serbs identified themselves asthe ingroup and Bosnian Muslims as ascapegoated outgroup. Feeling legitimizedby the just-world phenomenon and underattack by Croatians and other outgroups,many Bosnian Serbs massacred their formerneighbors, Bosnian Muslims. The lethargy ofthe world community in reacting to thegenocide in Bosnia also reinforced feelingsof righteousness among Serbians. Currently,the genocide in Darfur has also evoked littleintervention by the United Nations and theinternational community.

CooperationAlthough we can easilythink of recent examplesof genocide, the pictureisn’t entirely bleak—someseemingly intractable con-flicts have also beenrecently resolved. Forexample, positive politicaldevelopments in NorthernIreland have proven thatcooperation, or working together for thegood of the group, can lead to more benefitthan defection, promoting one’s own inter-est at the expense of others. Cooperation isbeneficial, but it isn’t easy: We face a socialdilemma when a certain course of actionthat benefits an individual hurts the groupas a whole and will do more harm thangood as a whole if everyone takes thesame course. This dilemma often plays outon a global scale. Industrialized countrieshave about 20% of the world’s populationbut produce about 40% of the global car-bon emissions (Sierra Club, 2008). AsChina and India have also become increas-ingly industrialized and contribute more tocarbon emissions, the planet as a wholesuffers the consequences of each individualcountry promoting its own economic

interests with little regard for the environ-mental consequences.

There are plenty of factors that can con-vince us to cooperate with others, however.When people feel a high level of personalaccountability, for example, they feel moreinclined to cooperate. People may also coop-erate in order to protect their reputation or fol-low the norms of reciprocity that dictate thatwe should help others if they have helped us.Norms of fairness (such as punishing cheatersand rewarding helpful individuals) can encour-age cooperation, as can a shared social identi-ty with a group. In the aftermath of HurricaneIke’s devastating blow to the Gulf Coast ofTexas in 2008, volunteers worked together anddonated their time and money in order to helptheir neighbors and fellow Americans inGalveston and Houston.

It’s hard to cooperate with someoneelse if you can’t (or won’t) communicate, socommunication is a particularly crucial ele-ment of cooperation. When conflictinggroups can’t reach a mutually agreeablesolution, mediators can help the groupscommunicate with each other and develop aplan that’s beneficial to both sides.

ple may carry out altruistic acts with theexpectation of being the recipient of altru-ism at some point in the future or becausethey have been helped by altruism some-time in the past (Trivers, 1971). In general,people show altruism toward their relatives(nepotism), but perhaps we look after ourfamilies because we know that they will dothe same for us (Burnstein et al., 1994).Altruism can even enhance our attractive-ness: In one study, college women who

perceived altruism in certain men evaluated thosemen as more physically and sexually attractive(Jensen-Campbell et al., 1995).

According to C. Daniel Batson, altruismconstitutes only one motive for prosocialbehavior (1994). Corporate sponsors whoreceive promotional benefits from charitablecontributions practice egoism, doing some-thing beneficial for others in the hopes ofreceiving something in return. Social securitycould be considered a form of collectivism:Everyone contributes to the community chestto help the group as a whole. Religious valuesthat encourage helping others would count asexamples of principlism, the desire to engagein prosocial behavior out of principle. No mat-ter what drives us, however, our prosocialbehavior helps us improve society and nurtureand sustain our relationships.

Social trap is a situation in which conflicting partiesall try to win a conflict by engaging in mutuallydestructive behaviors, resulting in no one winning.

Genocide is the systematic destruction of onegroup by another.

Cooperation is the act of working together for thegood of the group.

Defection is the act of promoting one’s own inter-est at the expense of others.

Prosocial behavior is behavior carried out withthe goal of helping others.

Altruism is prosocial behavior that is carried outwithout concern for one’s own safety or self-interest.

Reciprocal altruism is a theory that suggeststhat people may carry out altruistic acts with theexpectation of being the recipient of altruism at somepoint in the future or because they have been helpedby altruism sometime in the past.

Egoism describes the act of doing somethingbeneficial for others in the hopes of receiving some-thing in return.

Collectivism describes the act of contributingsomething beneficial to the whole group to which aperson belongs.

Principlism is a desire to engage in prosocialbehavior out of principle.

•••

•••

”“We face a social dilemma when a certain

course of action that benefits an individualhurts the group as a whole and will domore harm than good as a whole if every-one takes the same course.This dilemmaoften plays out on a global scale.

ALTRUISM AND PROSOCIALBEHAVIORWhat makes us put the interests of others first,even risking our own well-being in the process?Prosocial behavior, behavior carried out withthe goal of helping others, becomes altruismwhen it is carried out without concern for one’sown safety or self-interest. We don’t gain anysort of advantage from performing an altruisticact; in fact, we might even put ourselves at adisadvantage. (Some psychologists and philoso-phers argue that if we feel good after performingan altruistic act, the act wasn’t purely altruisticafter all.) While displays of altruism don’t com-monly grip reality TV show audiences, it’s impor-tant to remember that humans are capable ofselfless social acts as well as selfish ones.

What might cause us to act altruistically? Thetheory of reciprocal altruism suggests that peo-


WHAT IS SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY?p.202

• Social psychology examines how the thoughts,actions, and behavior of individuals influence andare influenced by groups.

WHAT COGNITIVE PROCESSESUNDERLIE SOCIAL BEHAVIOR?p.203

• Social cognition focuses on the underlyingprocesses, such as attention and memory, thatmake social behavior possible. Biological struc-

tures and processes in the brain help us navigate our socialenvironment.

• The fusiform face area of the brain allows us to recognize faces

• The amygdala is involved in social category processing.

• The superior temporal sulcus processes biological motions.

• Mirror neurons in the inferior frontal gyrus help us feel empathy.

HOW DOES SOCIAL INFLUENCEAFFECT OUR THOUGHTS ANDACTIONS? p.204

• Through social pressure, social influence can leadpeople to conform, obey, and mimic others.

• Social influence affects performance and plays arole in persuasion.

HOW ARE SOCIAL RELATIONSINFLUENCED BY PSYCHOLOGICALPHENOMENA? p.211

• Fear and anger can affect social relations throughprejudice, stereotyping, and conflict.

• Self-conscious emotions such as guilt can lead tosocial repair.

• Group relations can be improved through cooperation andaltruism.

Summary

Test Your Understanding

1. Jane is waiting in line at the grocery store when another womanbumps into her, does not apologize, and then steps in line in frontof her. According to the theory of the fundamental attributionerror, which of the following is most likely to be Jane’s reaction?

a. That woman must be in a hurry for some reason.b. That woman must not have been able to see me well.c. That woman must be incredibly rude and thoughtless.d. That woman must not be used to shopping in large stores.

2. Elijah believes that he failed to land a job because the hiring man-ager was in a bad mood on the day of his interview. Which of thefollowing is most likely affecting Elijah’s reasoning?

a. a baby-face biasb. a self-serving biasc. an attractiveness biasd. a preexisting schema

3. Which of the following statements about social cognition isNOT true?

a. Theories of social cognition attempt to explain the relationshipbetween attention, memory, and social behavior.

b. Theories of social cognition generally acknowledge the impor-tance of biological processes in social behavior.

c. According to social cognitive theory, our ability to recognizefaces can be traced to specific structures in the brain.

d. According to social cognitive theory, our social interactions areguided almost entirely by external, environmental factors.

4. What do neurological findings about racial biases suggest aboutthe nature of prejudice?

a. Our prejudices are impossible to change.b. Everyone grows up without racial biases.c. It is difficult for us to unlearn old prejudices.d. Prejudice is determined entirely by genetics.

5. A person who buys a lottery ticket is acting in response to the:

a. hedonic motiveb. approval motivec. accuracy motived. chameleon effect

6. In a discussion about who to vote for in the Presidential election,which of the following conditions would most likely facilitateconformity?

a. a discussion among several people in a crowded restaurantb. a discussion between a Democrat and a Republicanc. a discussion between a woman and a mand. a discussion that takes place in a private home

7. Which of the following is a primary explanation for the existenceof the bystander effect?

a. People are too busy to help others in need.b. People in a group relinquish personal responsibility.c. People tend to pay attention only to their own problems.d. People in a group are easily distracted by other group members.

arex

e

Chap

ter

14216

14CHAPTER Review


8. Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the find-ings of Milgram’s experiments?

a. People are inherently immoral.b. People enjoy inflicting pain on others.c. People prefer not to think for themselves.d. People tend to obey others under certain conditions.

9. Why are Milgram’s findings limited in their ability to explain real-world phenomena?

a. Milgram performed his experiments on naturally violent people.b. Milgram’s experiments were not considered ethical by today’s

standards.c. The experimental conditions did not simulate a plausible real-

world experience.d. Real-world phenomena can never be explained by experimen-

tal results.

10. Which of the following best accounts for how false informationfrom tabloids sometimes becomes accepted as fact?

a. persuasionb. implicit attitudesc. the sleeper effectd. cognitive dissonance

11. Mary, who is usually shy and reserved, dances and sings loudly ata crowded rock concert. Mary’s actions serve as an example of:

a. groupthinkb. deindividuationc. group polarizationd. minority influence

12. How might self-conscious emotions serve a social function?

a. They can reduce groupthink.b. They can increase social loafing.c. They can lead to relationship repair.d. They can hinder minority influence.

13. Which of the following statements about stereotypes is true?

a. Stereotypes serve no useful purpose.b. Stereotypes are hard to disprove due to minority influence.c. Stereotypes are often supported by the confirmation bias.d. Stereotypes have become significantly less powerful over

the years.

14. Results from Implicit Association Tests about race reveal that:

a. people think racism is socially acceptableb. people are often unaware of their biasesc. racial prejudice has decreased over the yearsd. racist attitudes can only be accessed implicitly

15. Given that Mika’s opinion about homelessness is affected by thejust-world phenomenon, which statement most likely reflectsMika’s opinion?

a. “If I ignore homelessness, I’ll be happier.”b. “Helping the homeless is not very important to me.”c. “It’s not fair that so many people should be homeless.”d. “Only bad people who don’t work hard end up homeless.”

16. Which of the following scenarios would be most likely toeffectively reduce prejudice between two groups of people?

a. Members of both groups live near each other.b. Members of both groups work together to solve a puzzle.

c. The two groups participate in Implicit Association Tests.d. The two groups compete against each other in an athletic

contest.

17. Which of the following statements about aggression is supportedby research findings?

a. Genetics likely play no significant role in aggression.b. Aggression is a quality that likely developed from our need

to belong.c. Large limbic structures in the brain are associated with lack of

aggression in humans.d. Frontal lobe damage may compromise an individual’s ability to

control aggression.

18. Which of the following behaviors best illustrates the frustration-aggression hypothesis?

a. arguing after drinking too muchb. competing for a promotion at workc. conducting an armed robbery at a bankd. yelling after being put on hold on the phone

19. Hector volunteers to help his professor with administrative tasksbecause he wants to get on his professor’s good side andreceive a better grade in class. Hector’s behavior is anexample of:

a. altruismb. egoismc. collectivismd. principlism

20. Phoebe is an advertiser who has created several ads in order toconvince people to buy a new brand of toothpaste. Which of thefollowing ad concepts best illustrates Phoebe’s use of the periph-eral route to persuasion?

a. a picture of a popular celebrity holding a tube of toothpasteb. a diagram that illustrates how the toothpaste removes plaquec. a local dentist’s explanation of the toothpaste’s proven health

benefitsd. a price comparison chart that shows people how affordable

the toothpaste is

Remember to check www.thethinkspot.com for additional infor-mation, downloadable flashcards, and other helpful resources.

So

cia

l Psyc

ho

log

y2

17

Answers:1) c; 2) b; 3) d; 4) c; 5) a; 6) a; 7) b; 8) d; 9) c; 10) c; 11) b; 12) c; 13) c; 14) b; 15) d; 16) b; 17) d; 18) d; 19) b; 20) a


Decad

es L

ate

r, S

till

Askin

g: W

ould

I P

ull

That

Sw

itch?

R5

-1

READINGS

Decades Later, Still Asking:

Would I Pull That Switch?

By BENEDICT CAREY

Many of the most

infamous studies

to which Carey is

referring, such as

the Milgram experi-

ments discussed in

this article, were

performed decades

ago and would not

be sanctioned by

today's institution-

al review boards,

which impose

rigorous ethical

standards.

Milgram's studies are

discussed in detail in

Chapter 14 (p. 207).Why do you think Milgram's experiments are still

so famous over 40 years after they took place?

SOME OF PSYCHOLOGY’S

MOST FAMOUS EXPERI-

MENTS are those that

expose the skull beneath the

skin, the apparent cowardice

or depravity pooling in

almost every heart.

The findings force a ques-

tion. Would I really do that?

Could I betray my own eyes,

my judgment, even my

humanity, just to complete

some experiment?

The answer, if it’s an hon-

est one, often gives rise to

observations about the cruel-

ties of the day, whether sui-

cide bombing, torture or

gang atrocities. And so a

psych experiment — a mock

exercise, testing individual

behavior — can become

something else, a changing

prism through which people

view the larger culture, for

better and for worse.

Consider the psychologist

Stanley Milgram’s obedi-

ence studies of the early

1960s that together form one

of the darkest mirrors the

field has held up to the

human face. In a series of

about 20 experiments, hun-

dreds of decent, well-inten-

tioned people agreed to

deliver what appeared to be

increasingly painful electric

shocks to another person, as

part of what they thought

was a learning experiment.

The “learner” was in fact an

actor, usually seated out of

sight in an adjacent room,

pretending to be zapped.

Researchers, social com-

mentators and armchair psy-

chologists have pored

through Milgram’s data ever

since, claiming psychologi-

cal and cultural insights.

Now, decades after the origi-

nal work (Milgram died in

1984, at 51), two new papers

illustrate the continuing

power of the shock experi-

ments — and the diverse

interpretations they still

inspire.

In one, a statistical analy-

sis to appear in the July issue

of the journal Perspectives

on Psychological Science, a

postdoctoral student at Ohio

State University verifies a

crucial turning point in

Milgram’s experiments, the

voltage level at which partic-

ipants were most likely to

disobey the experimenter

and quit delivering shocks.

The participants usually

began with what they

thought were 15-volt shocks,

and worked upward in 15-

volt increments, as the

experimenter instructed. At

75 volts, the “learner” in the

next room began grunting in

apparent pain. At 150 volts

he cried out: “Stop, let

me out! I don’t want to do

this anymore.”

At that point about a third

of the participants refused to

continue, found Dominic

Packer, author of the new

paper. “The previous expres-

sions of pain were insuffi-

cient,” Dr. Packer said. But

at 150 volts, he continued,

those who disobeyed decid-

ed that the learner’s right to

stop trumped the experi-

menter’s right to continue.

Before the end of the experi-

Baird_Reading_R5.qxd:Layout 1 12/1/08 11:16 PM Page 2

Read

ing

R5

-2

At 150 volts he cried out: “Stop, let me out!I don’t want to do this anymore.”

This could be a refer-

ence both to theevents at Abu Ghraib

and to Zimbardo'sfamous Stanfordprison experiment,

which is described in

Chapter 2 (p. 29).

Remember that all of

these experiments were

conducted in laboratory

settings, so it's hard to

generalize their findings

to real-world situations.

The bystander effect,discussed in Chapter14 (p. 207), is alsorelated to issues ofaccountability andpersonal responsibili-ty. How does ourperception of our ownaccountability seemto influence ouractions?

Do you think this new study ismore ethical than Milgram's originalstudy was? Can we really draw anethical line based on voltage?

ments, at 450 volts, an addi-tional 10 to 15 percent haddropped out.This appreciation ofanother’s right is crucial ininterrogation, Dr. Packersuggests. When prisoners’rights are ambiguous, inhu-mane treatment can follow.Milgram’s work, in short,makes a statement about theimportance of human rights,as well as obedience.

In the other paper, due outin the journal AmericanPsychologist, a professor atSanta Clara University repli-cates part of the Milgramstudies — stopping at 150volts, the critical juncture atwhich the subject cries out tostop—to see whether peopletoday would still obey.Ethics committees barresearchers from pushingsubjects through to an imaginary 450 volts, asMilgram did.The answer was yes.Once again, more than halfthe participants agreed toproceed with the experimentpast the 150-volt mark. JerryM. Burger, the author, inter-viewed the participants after-ward and found that thosewho stopped generallybelieved themselves to beresponsible for the shocks,

whereas those who keptgoing tended to hold theexperimenter accountable.That is, the Milgram workalso demonstrated individualdifferences in perceptions ofaccountability—of who’s onthe hook for what.Thomas Blass, a psycholo-gist at the University ofMaryland, Baltimore County,and the author of a biographyof Milgram, “The Man WhoShocked the World”(BasicBooks, 2004), said establish-ing the demand by the subjectto stop as the turning point wasitself a significant achieve-ment. “It’s a simple but impor-tant discovery,” Dr. Blass said.“I hadbeenminingthis data foryears and somehow missed it.”He added that extrapolatingMilgram’s findings to largerevents like the Holocaust, asMilgram himself did, or AbuGhraib was a big leap. “Thepower of the Milgram workwas it showed how people canact destructively without coer-cion,” he said. “In things likeinterrogations, we don’t knowthe complexities involved.People are under enormouspressure to produce results.”The Milgram data haveunappreciated complexities oftheir own. In his new report,Dr. Burger argues that at least

two other factors were atwork when participantswalked into the psychologist’slab at Yale decades ago.Uncertainty, as it was an unfa-miliar situation. And timepressure, as they had to makedecisions quickly. Rushed anddisoriented, they were likelymore compliant than theywould otherwise have been,Dr. Burger said.In short, the Milgramexperiments may have shownphysical, biological differ-ences in moral decision mak-ing and obedience, as well aspsychological ones. Somepeople can be as quick on thedraw as Doc Holliday whenthey feel something’s notright. Others need a little timeto do the right thing, thankyou, and would rather not beconsidered sadistic prisonguards just yet.

“The most remarkablething,” Dr. Burger said, “isthat we’re still talking about the work, almost 50years after it was done. You can’t say that aboutmany experiments.”

Baird_Reading_R5.qxd:Layout 1 12/1/08 11:16 PM Page 3

R THINK Psychology E © 2010 - Pearson Education...a “baby-face bias” that causes people to view...

Documents

Transcript of R THINK Psychology E © 2010 - Pearson Education...a “baby-face bias” that causes people to view...