experimental psychology psy 433 chapter 13 social psychology
TRANSCRIPT
Midterm Results
Score Grade N
29-34 A 10
26-28 B 8
22-25 C 6
19-21 D 0
0-18 F 1
Top score = 34 (2 people)Top of curve = 32.5
Social Psychology
Social Cognition -- how we perceive others: Stereotypes, prejudice, attraction, liking. Attitudes and beliefs, identity, sense of self,
and how these are changed. Social Influence -- how others influence our
behavior: Conformity, compliance, and obedience.
Aggression, violence, altruism, cooperation.
Conformity
Sherif’s (1935) work on social norms using the autokinetic effect.
Autokinetic effect – a stationary spot of light in a dark room appears to move.
What others say affects an observer’s perceptions –it appears to move in an arc if other people saw it move in an arc.
Conformity
Asch’s (1951, 1956, 1958) work on conformity using line judgments.
Subjects were told the study was on visual discrimination, but it was actually on conformity.
The task – identify which of 3 lines matches a standard.
Asch expected that people would follow the evidence of their own eyes – but they didn’t.
Asch’s Paradigm
Six confederates & 1 subject Each responded out loud Experimental manipulation:
Confederates respond correctly on 6 trials & incorrectly on 12
Most subjects conformed on 1 or more of the 12 incorrect trials
Control: Confederates always responded correctly (only 5% of subjects erred).
Compliance and Obedience
Milgram (1963, 1964, 1965) obedience task Paid subjects volunteered for a study of the
effects of punishment on learning/memory. Involved 3 people:
Authority – the experimenter Victim – the “learner” (a confederate) Subject -- the “teacher”
Milgram’s Shock Panel
Slight Shock
Moderate Shock
Strong Shock
Very Strong Shock
IntenseShock
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
Extreme-Intensity Shock
Danger: Severe Shock
315 330 345 360 375 390 405 420 435 450
XXX
Learner Responses
Slight Shock
Moderate Shock
Strong Shock
Very Strong Shock
IntenseShock
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
Grunts &
Moans
“Let me out!”
“I can’t stand the
pain!”
“I refuse to
answer!”
Conditions Affecting Obedience
The setting – did Yale foster obedience because it was well-known, Ivy League? Replication in a sleazy part of Bridgeport 48% gave max shock, compared to 65%
Presence/absence of peers also showing defiance or conformity: Conforming peers encouraged greater shock.
Proximity to the “victim”: 74% when hear victim, 40% when see victim, 30% when touch victim
Interpreting Conformity Results
Perhaps subjects trusted that no harm would really come to the subjects – treated the context as “make believe”.
Perhaps results underestimate conformity, since the experimenter truly has no authority over the subject.
Obedience is not necessarily bad – society would not function if people ignored laws and persons in authority.
Dependent Variables
Questionnaires measuring belief, attitude, preference (liking). Rating scales
Behavioral measures: Aggression measured by shock given. Attraction measured by how long a man talks
to a woman, smiles at her, whether he asks her out.
Converging measures are better.
Independent Variables
Characteristics of a social situation or of people (demographic variables).
Factors believed to affect behavior are manipulated: Persuasiveness – manipulate number or type
of arguments used. Aggression – manipulate temperature in a
room to test whether heat affects behavior. Conformity – manipulate number of people
who agree or disagree.
Demand Characteristics
Are subjects acting normally in an experiment, or are they just doing what they think they are expected to do? Did Milgram’s subjects give shock because
the experimental context demanded it? Orne and Evans (1965) examined demand
characteristics in a hypnosis study. Is behavior due to hypnosis or due to
demand characteristics?
Hypnosis Demos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmgptd8bXfA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn171z-CPLs
The Bystander Studies
Several incidents pre-1970 got researchers interested in another area of social influence: The mere presence of other people
The bystander effect -- the more people who observe a crisis, the less likely any one of them is to help the victim.
Is this true in every situation?
Darley and Latane (1968)
Over an intercom, subjects discussed problems in college life with 1, 2, or 5 others.
IV: Number of bystanders (0, 1, or 4) DV: whether subject responded &
elapsed sec The more bystanders, the less likely
subjects were to respond and the longer it took when they did respond
Note: typo in Kantowitz Table 13-2.
Diffusion of Responsibility
Piliavin et al. (1969) manipulated: Race of the victim simulating a crisis. Whether victim appeared ill or drunk.
They recorded race of helper, number of helpers, racial composition of bystanders.
Results: Help offered more readily to ill (95%) than
drunk (50%). Race only mattered for drunk victims. Number of bystanders didn’t matter.
Where Did the Effect Go?
Piliavin et al.’s study was done in the field not in the lab. Maybe other factors were present.
If people are made to feel responsible for a situation they are more likely to help, regardless of bystanders. Milgram’s subjects were told that the
experimenter was responsible. People may be reluctant to intervene due to
potential embarrassment, loss of poise.