Social PsychologySocial Psychology

The study of how people behave and feel in social

situation and in the presence of others.

What affects people? Culture

– Pattern of life that is passed on from one generation to another

• Language, customs and sex roles

Roles– Pattern of behavior expected of a person in

certain positions and settings– Ascribed roles

• Roles that you can’t change.– Gender, age, son or sibling

– Achieved roles• Roles attained voluntarily.

– Teacher, spouse, student or parent

Affect of Roles Role Conflict

– When two roles conflict• Busy teacher working late on school work and spouse who was

to spend time with wife

Philip Zimbardo’s Prison Study– Stanford University– Role-playing prisoners and guard that led to

dehumanizing behavior by the guards• Deindividualized prisoners similar to “road rage”

– Roles shaped individuals behavior and changed them– He interpreted the results that roles have a powerful

influence

Status

Status affects roles and privileges Higher the status the greater the respect,

power to enter personal space

Norms vs. Mores

Norms– Standards of

conduct/behavior– Norms are est. by society

but do change over time• Smoking in restaurants use

to be the norm but now is not acceptable

– People who break norms are often seen as weird and sometimes ostracized or discriminated against

– Norms may or may not have laws to enforce them

– Ex. Wearing underwear on the outside of your clothes

Mores– Taboos– Severe breaking of

society’s law– Ex. Incest, murders

and cruelty

Personal Space Invisible space of comfortability around a person. Proxemics

– The study of the rules that govern personal use of space in different settings. Formal v. informal

Public distance– 12+ feet, formal distance, public speakers

Social distance– 4-12 feet for informal business and casual social

gatherings Personal distance

– 1.5-4 feet within arms reach. Friends and family Intimate distance

– Inside 1.5 feet. Very close friends and loved ones Elevators create tension for people

Need to Affiliate People are social animals and need to form

affiliations for love, protection or comparison Schachter Affiliation study

– People who face trying situations want others to share their misery with them if they are facing it for the first time

• Misery loves company as long as both are facing it for the first time

Social comparison– People need to compare themselves against others – We like to test ourselves against those who are of similar

ability to see how good we are.• Especially if we have a high Nach.

Need to share

As we get closer to someone we will share more of who we – – Disclosure– Over-disclosure is where a person shares too

much info too early which can scare people off.– Reciprocity

• We respond back something personal in response to them opening up to us

Mate Selection

Homogamy– Choose mates that are similar in religion,

ideology, age, ethnicity, social class and education

– Proximity has a great effect on mate choices– Mere exposure effect

• Love grows on people the more you are around them

• First impressions are important but the longer you are around a person the more likely you will become fond of them

Attribution Theory

Attribute– Making inferences about a person’s personality

based on their behavior.– We infer either external or internal causes to an

individual behavior– What do we attribute to a person’s state of

homelessness• Internal – Shiftless and lazy

• External – Poor opportunity and societal problems

Fundamental Attribution Error Often individuals overestimate a person’s

disposition and underestimates a situation When external demands are strong we discount

internal causes of behavior When bad things happen to us, it is b/c

– Situation external cause– I got an F b/c the teacher is bad

When good things happen to us, it is b/c– Internal disposition or abilities– I got an A b/c I am smart or work hard

When bad things happen to them, it is b/c– Internal disposition or abilities– They got an F because they are dumb or lazy

When good things happen to them, it is b/c– Situation external cause– They got an A because it was an easy test or guessed

well

More Attribution Error Issues (you

have) Consensus

– If others are doing it or suffered it must be the situation– All students didn’t do well

Distinctiveness– How unique is the behavior or the situation– Did not do well on specific task

Consistency– Is the behavior the same from one situation to the next– Do you do poorly on all tests

Self-Handicapping– Lack of confidence causes an individual to put

themselves in demanding situations to give them an excuse for failing

FA Error leads to… Double standards- standard for self or excuses to

explain your inadequacies but don’t give others those excuses

Prejudice- Thoughts Discrimination- Actions Stereotypes- not always negative attribution of

characteristics to a group– Often oversimplifications– Often the cause of conflict between groups– Huns/Krauts/NIPs/Gooks – dehumanize them makes it

easier to kill Ethnocentrism- my group is superior to others Scapegoating- blaming others for problems -

displacement

Persuasion Source

– Expertise• Doctor

– Credibility• Well known successful writer

– Trustworthiness• Walter Cronkite

– Power• CEO or President

– Attractiveness• Beauty sells

– Similarity to audience• Children advertising toys

Persuasion

Receiver (Target/Audience)– The less intelligent the audience the better a

one-sided emotion message works– The more intelligent the audience the better a

balanced two-sided less emotional a message

Influence of Others’ Requests - Compliance

Sales techniques and cognitive dissonance– four-walls technique

• question customer in such a way that gets answers consistent with the idea that they need to own object

• feeling of cognitive dissonance results if person chooses not to buy this thing that they “need”

Sales Techniques and Cognitive Dissonance

Foot-in-the-door technique– ask for something small at first, then hit

customer with larger request later– small request has paved the way to compliance

with the larger request– cognitive dissonance results if person has

already granted a request for one thing, then refuses to give the larger item

The Reciprocity Norm and Compliance

We feel obliged to return favors, even those we did not want in the first place– opposite of foot-in-the-door– salesperson gives something to customer with

idea that they will feel compelled to give something back (buying the product)

– even if person did not wish for favor in the first place

– Time-share sales pitches• stay for free just listen to a one-hour presentation

Door in the Face

Ask for something big– Drive me across town to see my girlfriend

• Told no

• Use guilt of being told no

– Could you drive me home just three miles away• Yes

End result you get what you want which is the ride home

Low-ball Technique

Offer an amazing low price that is to get you in the door

Add-ons or bait and switch makes up your profit

Lost leaders – Low prices on eggs get you to the store and you

can’t resist buying other stuff which more than compensates for the revenue lost on eggs

Preventing Reactance Against Pressure

Psychological reactance– if pressure is too blatant, has opposite of

intended effect• leads to salespeople using softer techniques so

that person feels they have a choice• often phrase pressure into questions

– “would you please put your books and notes away for the quiz?”

Following Others’ Examples – Conformity

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

2 general reasons for conformity– informational influence

• other people can provide useful and crucial information

– normative influence • desire to be accepted as part of a group leads to that

group having an influence

Asch’s Experiments on Conformity

When?– 1951

Previous 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?

Asch’s Experiments on Conformity

All but 1 in group was confederate

Seating was rigged Asked to rate which

line matched a “standard” line

Confederates were instructed to pick the wrong line 12/18 times

Comparison linesStandard lines1 2 3

Asch’s Experiments on Conformity

Results– Asch found that 75% participants conformed to at least

one wrong choice– subjects gave wrong answer (conformed) on 37% of the

critical trials

Why did they conform to clearly wrong choices?– informational influence?– subjects reported having doubted their own perceptual

abilities which led to their conformance – didn’t report seeing the lines the way the confederates had

Asch’s Experiments on conformity

Variations to test informational influence hypothesis– 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

Effects of a Nonconformist

If everyone agrees, you are less likely to disagree

If one person disagrees, even if they give the wrong answer, you are more likely to express your nonconforming view

Asch tested this hypothesis– one confederate gave different answer from others– conformity dropped significantly

Social Pressure in Group Decisions

Groupthink– group members try to maintain harmony

and unanimity in group– can lead to some better decisions and

some worse decisions than individuals– Leads to lack of individual critical

thinking

Social Pressure in Group Decisions

Group polarization– majority position

stronger after a group discussion in which a minority is arguing against the majority point of view

Why does this occur?– informational and

normative influences

Against For

Group 1 Group 2Before group discussion

Strength of opinion(a)

Against For

Group 1 Group 2After group discussion

Strength of opinion(b)

Social Power Power over others depends on type of power Reward Power

– Influence people with rewards• Politicians with gov’t jobs

Coercive Power– Influence people through fear and punishment

• Police

Legitimate Power– Influence people by their position

• Judge or a principal

Referent Power– Power gained through respect or reverence

Expert Power – Influence through knowledge or expertise

• Scientist or degree

Obedience Obedience

– compliance of person is due to perceived authority of asker

– request is perceived as a command

Milgram interested in unquestioning obedience to orders

Stanley Milgram’s Studies Basic study

procedure– teacher and learner

(learner always confederate)

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

Stanley Milgram’s Studies

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

Stanley Milgram’s Studies

1234

5678

9101112

13141516

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

Stanley Milgram’s Studies

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…”

Obedience

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

Obedience

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Slight(15-60)

Moderate(75-120)

Strong(135-180)

Verystrong

(195-240)

Intense(255-300)

Extremeintensity(315-360)

Danger:severe

(375-420)

XXX(435-450)

Shock levels in works

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

sub

jec

ts

wh

o o

be

yed

exp

eri

me

nte

r

Explanations for 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

Explanations for Milgram’s Results

Authority of Yale and value of scienceExperimenter self-assurance and

acceptance of responsibilityProximity of learner and experimenterNew situation and no model of how to

behave

Percentage of subjects administeringthe maximum shock (450 volts)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Follow-Up Studies to Milgram

Original study

Different building

Teacher with learner

Put hand on shock

Orders by phone

Ordinary man orders

2 teachers rebelTeacher chooses shock

level

Critiques of Milgram

Although 84% later said they were glad to have participated and fewer than 2% said they were sorry, there are still ethical issues

Do these experiments really help us understand real-world atrocities?

Cognitive Dissonance Leon Festinger

– Conflict (dissonance) that is caused by behavior and attitude in conflict

– Dissonance occurs because attitude about something does not match their behavior

– People will respond more positively to a negative experience if their behavior caused dissonance

– Boot camp, pledge initiation– Excellent for bonding a group– A horrible free concert becomes more enjoyable later

because you change your attitude to match sitting through it

– Boot camp is a combination of misery loves company and cognitive dissonance

• What else can explain men praise for crawling through mud and being bullied by a drill sergeant

Effort Justification– Those that get nothing or very little often try

to explain why they did a certain thing which often changes their attitude.

Selective exposure – Hang around like-minded people to reinforce

your attitude

Why Don’t People Always Help Others in Need?

Diffusion of responsibility– presence of others leads to decreased

help response– we all think someone else will help, so

we don’t

Why Don’t People Always Help Others in Need?

Latane and Darley studies– several scenarios designed to measure the

help response• found that if you think you’re the only one

that can hear or help, you are more likely to do so

• if there are others around, you will diffuse the responsibility to others

Kitty Genovese incident

Brainwashing

Techniques used to change thinking

Cooperation and Social Dilemmas

Social dilemma– action/inaction will benefit individual, but harm

others in the group, and cause more harm than good to everyone if everyone takes that course

Use of games to study social dilemmas– one-shot prisoner’s dilemma– iterative prisoner’s dilemma– effect of adding players

Social Identity and Cooperation

Social identity theory– states that when you’re assigned to a group,

you automatically think of that group as an in-group for you

– Sherif’s camp study• 11-12 year old boys at camp• boys were divided into 2 groups and kept

separate from one another• each group took on characteristics of distinct

social group, with leaders, rules, norms of behavior, and names

Sherif’s Camp Study

Leaders proposed series of competitive interactions

Led to 3 changes between groups and within groups– within-group solidarity – negative stereotyping of other group – hostile between-group interactions

Sherif’s Camp Study

Overcoming the strong we/they effect– establishment of superordinate goals

• e.g., breakdown in camp water supply

– overcoming intergroup strife - research• stereotypes are diluted when people

share individuating information

Deindividuation Social loafing

– when behavior is not monitored, performance goes down

• e.g., group projects

Risky shift

Deindividuation– sense of reduced accountability and shifted attention

away from the self that occurs in groups– responsible for riots, lynchings, gang rapes, road rage

and other group violence

Summary

Compliance– sales techniques

Obedience– Milgram’s studies

Cooperation– Sherif’s camp study