social psychology: 13 social psychology: personal...

1

Social Psychology: Social Psychology: Personal PerspectivesPersonal Perspectives

Cha

pter

13

Cha

pter

13

•• The Nature of Social PsychologyThe Nature of Social Psychology•• The Nature and Functions of The Nature and Functions of

AttitudesAttitudes•• Attributions: Explaining and Attributions: Explaining and

Interpreting BehaviorInterpreting Behavior•• Impression FormationImpression Formation•• Attraction, Liking, and LovingAttraction, Liking, and Loving

Brief OutlineBrief Outline

Social Psychology: Social Psychology: Personal PerspectivesPersonal Perspectives131313





Social Psychology: Social Psychology: Personal PerspectivesPersonal Perspectives131313 Social Psychology: Social Psychology: Social Psychology:

Personal PerspectivesPersonal PerspectivesPersonal Perspectives

•• The Nature of Social The Nature of Social PsychologyPsychology

131313

social psychology

• The study of how others affect our thoughts, feelings and behaviors

social psychology

• Examines cognitive, affective & behavioral aspects of humans

• Examines influence of others on human behavior

• Takes functional approach to behavior, not only how, but why people behave as they do

2

social cognition

• The study of cognition that pertains to self and others in the context of social situations

• Concerns thoughts and beliefs we have about ourselves and others

• How we perceive and interpret information about ourselves and others

• How these perceptions affect us

social cognition

• Complex area—interfaces with other areas of psychology such as emotion, cognition, motivation and personality

• Studies relationships from casual to friendships to romance







•• The Nature and Functions of The Nature and Functions of AttitudesAttitudes–– Attitude FormationAttitude Formation–– Attitude ChangeAttitude Change–– Cognitive ConsistencyCognitive Consistency–– Cognitive DissonanceCognitive Dissonance–– SelfSelf--Perception TheoryPerception Theory

131313

attitude

• A learned, stable, and lasting evaluation of a person, object, or idea.

• Not innate—acquired through interactions and experiences

• Resistant to change• Possess cognitive, affective, and behavioral

components

Social Psychology: Social Psychology: Social Psychology: Personal PerspectivesPersonal PerspectivesPersonal Perspectives

•• The Nature and Functions of The Nature and Functions of AttitudesAttitudes–– Attitude FormationAttitude Formation–– Attitude ChangeAttitude Change

131313

3

Attitude Formation

• Learning theory accounts for much of attitude formation:– Classical conditioning accounts for new

attitudes developed when paired with existing attitudes

– Operant conditioning explains attitude formation in terms of rewards and punishers associated with adopting an attitude

Attitude Formation

• Learning theory accounts for much of attitude formation:– Observational learning both from live models

and from media such as television and movies accounts for much of attitude formation• Parents shapes attitudes largely through

observational learning

How can attitudes be changed?

• Studies in persuasion date back to World War II when it became necessary to understand the processes through which propaganda affected attitudes.

• Focused on the recipient of persuasive attempts, the persuasive message, and the source of the persuasive message.

Attitude Change

• The Recipient• The Message• The Source

– Credibility– Likability

• The Link between attitudes and behavior• Culture, Time and Attitude

The Recipient

• Petty and Cacioppo proposed persuasion occurs under two types of cognitive processing: – Central route– Peripheral route

Central Route to Persuasion

• Emphasizes thoughtful arguments related to an issue.

• Motivated recipients are effectively approached with this route

4

Peripheral Route to Persuasion

• Emphasizes incidental properties of the message such as the attractiveness of the sender, attractiveness of the message presentation or the rewarding aspects of the message.

• May be better suited to an attitude change in subjects who are unmotivated about an issue

Central or Peripheral?

• In either case, stronger arguments are more effective than weaker arguments

• Strong arguments brought on greater change in those who process centrally

• Central attitude change tends to last longer than peripheral change.

Attitude Change




The Message

• Much research has focused on the presentation of a balanced argument (pros and cons) versus one-sided arguments.

• Arguments that give a balanced presentation of viewpoints appear to be no more persuasive to subjects that are predisposed to agree or disagree, but more effective countering effects of later persuasive attempts

Repeated Exposure

• Generally, repeated exposure tends to promote attitude change in favor of the message, an effect called the mere exposure effect.

• Long-term exposure to repeated messages can however reverse the effect if subjects become bored or annoyed.

Attitude Change




5

The Source – Credibility

• Hovland and Weiss: Persuasive sources high in credibility or high believability are more effective than sources low in credibility.

• Credibility effects are greatest immediately after delivery of a persuasive message.

The Source - Likability

• Eagly and Chaiken: Most subjects are more easily persuaded by messages from people they like than by people they do not like.

• Likability effect especially important is in effecting attitude change in people who find the original position unappealing.

• Likability more persuasive in video than audio. No effect in written media.

–– Attitude ChangeAttitude Change131313Interaction Interaction

Between the Between the Medium of Medium of

the Messagethe Messageand the and the

LikabilityLikability of of the Message the Message

SenderSender

Attitude Change




Link Between Attitudes & Behavior

• Factors which increase the likelihood of a behavior occurring because of an attitude:– Attitude Strength – Stronger attitudes more

likely to be reflected in behavior– Information & experience – Attitudes formed

because of high levels of information or experience are likely to be reflected in behavior

Link Between Attitudes & Behavior

• Factors which increase the likelihood of a behavior occurring because of an attitude:– Attitude Specificity – The more specific an

attitude is, the more likely behavior supporting that attitude will occur.

– Situational Factors – Proximate events may have strong effects on behavior despite any attitudes possessed.

6

–– Cognitive ConsistencyCognitive Consistency


•• The Nature and Functions of The Nature and Functions of AttitudesAttitudes–– Attitude FormationAttitude Formation–– Attitude ChangeAttitude Change

131313 cognitive consistency theory

Festinger & Carlsmith: People try to match their

actions to their thoughts.

131313 –– Cognitive ConsistencyCognitive Consistency

The Classic Experiment on Cognitive DissonanceThe Classic Experiment on Cognitive Dissonance

–– Cognitive DissonanceCognitive Dissonance


•• The Nature and Functions of The Nature and Functions of AttitudesAttitudes–– Attitude FormationAttitude Formation–– Attitude ChangeAttitude Change–– Cognitive ConsistencyCognitive Consistency

131313

–– Cognitive DissonanceCognitive Dissonance131313

Qualifying Qualifying Conditions Conditions for Cognitive for Cognitive DissonanceDissonance

–– Cognitive DissonanceCognitive Dissonance131313

Qualifying Qualifying Conditions Conditions for Cognitive for Cognitive DissonanceDissonance(continued)(continued)

7

•• The Nature and Functions of The Nature and Functions of AttitudesAttitudes–– Attitude FormationAttitude Formation–– Attitude ChangeAttitude Change–– Cognitive ConsistencyCognitive Consistency–– Cognitive DissonanceCognitive Dissonance–– SelfSelf--Perception TheoryPerception Theory

Social Psychology: Social Psychology: Social Psychology: Personal PerspectivesPersonal PerspectivesPersonal Perspectives131313 self-perception theory

Bem:If people are unsure, they infer

their beliefs from their behavior.

self-perception theory

• Using Bem’s self-perception theory to explain Festinger and Carlsmith’s classic experiment, those who lied for $20 obviously did it for the money. Those who did it for $1 did not do it for the money, therefore they must have enjoyed the task and therefore did not lie.

Dialectic Approach

• In tradition of dialectic, Fazio, Zanna & Cooper synthesize cognitive dissonance theory and self-perception theory.

• Cognitive dissonance seems to better explain attitude change while self-perception theory better explains attitude formation.







•• Attributions: Explaining and Attributions: Explaining and Interpreting BehaviorInterpreting Behavior–– The Nature of AttributionsThe Nature of Attributions

131313

8

attribution

• The act of assigning cause to behavior about others, as well as, about ourselves

Fritz Heider

• One can make one of two kinds of attributions about the causes of behavior:–Personal or dispositional

attribution–Situational or external attribution

Dispositional attribution

• We won the football game because we have a high level of natural talent, we carefully studied our opponents strengths and weaknesses, and we paid the price of hard work and commitment by doubling our hours of practice.

Situational Attribution

• We lost the football game because of poor calls by the officials and the bad luck of having injuries to key players on our team.


•• Attributions: Explaining and Attributions: Explaining and Interpreting BehaviorInterpreting Behavior–– The Nature of AttributionsThe Nature of Attributions

•• Attribution Heuristics And BiasesAttribution Heuristics And Biases

131313 Heuristics

• No one takes all factors into account when making attributions. We cannot, so we tend to use heuristics or rules of thumb—we speculate.

• Although these heuristics allow us to make attributions quickly, they often lead us to make mistakes

9

Attribution Heuristics & Biases

• Social desirability• The Fundamental Attribution Error• Actor-Observer Effect• Self Serving Bias• Self-Handicapping

Social Desirability

• Undesirable behavior of others is weighed far more heavily than is desirable behavior in the attribution process.

• When we see someone who is unkempt, rude or sloppy, we may discount their more positive qualities.



Fundamental Attribution Error

• Tendency to overemphasize trait information and consequently de-emphasize situational information when making attributions– Example: driving slowly in traffic



Actor-Observer Effect

• An extension of the fundamental attribution error

• We are more likely, according to this bias, to attribute external causes to behavior in ourselves (the actors), than we are to behavior of others (the observed).

10


• Jones and Nisbett (1971): We know more about ourselves than we know about others, therefore we make a more sophisticated judgment of ourselves.

• In the case of others, not having that same knowledge, we revert to personality explanations.


• Some evidence suggests that we may extend the actor-observer effect to groups that we identify with.


• Islam and Hewstone (1993) found that Muslim and Hindu students in Bangladesh were likely to attribute good behaviors to dispositional causes and bad behaviors to external causes for members of a group with which they identified.

• They made the reverse attributions for groups with which they did not identify.



Self Serving Bias

• In making attributions for our own behavior, we tend to be generous and attribute positive effects to ourselves, while attributing negative effects to situational factors or to others.

• The self-serving bias also has the function of promoting self-confidence, which may be important to our successes

Self Serving Bias

• Not all cultures are as likely to engage in the self-serving bias

• Markus and Kitayama (1991) found that Japanese students are less likely than American students to engage in the self-serving bias.

11



Self-Handicapping

• Actions made to sabotage success are indicative of self-handicapping

• It is thought that self-handicapping provides one with excuses that can be later used to self-justify failure or potential failure.






•• Impression FormationImpression Formation–– Forming ImpressionsForming Impressions–– Social ComparisonSocial Comparison

Social Psychology: Social Psychology: Social Psychology: Personal PerspectivesPersonal PerspectivesPersonal Perspectives131313

Forming Impressions

• Impression formation explains how we form opinions of others from information that is obtained both directly and indirectly.

Forming ImpressionsForming Impressions• Solomon Asch: A model of impression

formation• Heuristics and Biases

– The Primacy Effect– Confirmation Bias– Person-Positivity Bias

12

Solomon Asch: A model of impression formation

• Asch’s seminal study (1946) on impression formation led to the concept of central traits, or traits that seem to have more effect than do others on impression formation

• Found that words “warm” and “cold” in a description of a person led to a major change in how a person was perceived.




Heuristics and Biases

• As with attributions discussed earlier, people also use heuristics to help them form impressions, and those heuristics can lead to bias.




The Primacy Effect

• First impressions are powerful, and they tend to demonstrate the primacy effect.

• The tendency to allow initial impressions to bias future impressions, applies to impressions of both others’ and their personality

Asch (1946)

• Intelligent• Industrious• Impulsive• Critical• Stubborn• Envious

• Envious• Stubborn• Critical• Impulsive• Industrious• Intelligent

13

The Primacy Effect

• Why does early information have a stronger effect on impression formation than later information?

• One explanation: our use of schemas.• When we first meet someone, we take the

first available information about them and begin to form a schema for that person.

The Primacy Effect

• Once formed, we tend to assimilate additional information into that schema which means that the schema is used to interpret our subsequent interactions with that person.

• When we receive additional information that is quite discrepant from our initial schema, we don’t abandon the schema.

The Primacy Effect

• We modify our original schema or begin a new schema, but the original impression is not entirely abandoned.

• First impressions are quite enduring.



– The Primary Effect– Confirmation Bias– Person-Positivity Bias

Confirmation Bias

• Also helps to explain the endurance of first impressions

• Confirmation bias occurs when we keep our first impressions of others through selective attention to and remembering of information that confirms our initial impressions.

Confirmation Bias

• This bias is common and probably saves us the time necessary to really understand others.

• Confirmation bias often leads to self-fulfilling prophecy, a prediction that we make come true.

14

Confirmation Bias

• If you expect someone to be mean, you may behave toward that person in a cool, aloof, and self-protective manner. This coldness on your part may elicit unkind behaviors from that person that confirm your initial impression of him or her as being mean.



– The Primary Effect– Confirmation Bias– Person-Positivity Bias

Person-Positivity Bias

• This is when we perceive individual members of groups more positively than the group to which they belong.

• This bias helps to explain ethnic and racial prejudice, in that even when we meet a minority member that we really like, we still do not abandon our negative stereotype for the whole group.

Person-Positivity Bias

• We tend to simply note that this individual does not conform to the stereotype

• We allow the stereotype to remain in effect for the other members of the group with whom we do not have positive and personal knowledge.

•• Impression FormationImpression Formation–– Forming ImpressionsForming Impressions–– Social ComparisonSocial Comparison

Social Psychology: Social Psychology: Social Psychology: Personal PerspectivesPersonal PerspectivesPersonal Perspectives131313 Social Comparison

• Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory (1954)

• How we judge ourselves in new and unusual situations. We observe others and make comparisons to our performance.

• Our self-esteem in these situations is dependent upon our models for comparison.

15

From “How to Make Yourself Miserable” by Dan Greenberg







•• Attraction, Liking, and LovingAttraction, Liking, and Loving–– Forces Influencing AttractionForces Influencing Attraction–– Theories of Liking and Theories of Liking and

Interpersonal AttractionInterpersonal Attraction–– Types of LoveTypes of Love

131313 Forces Influencing Attraction

• Mere Exposure Effect• Arousal• Proximity• Physical Attractiveness• Similarity

Mere Exposure Effect

• Predicts that we will be most attracted to those with whom we are familiar.

Forces Influencing Attraction


16

Arousal

• Dutton & Aron (1974) Experiment to demonstrate the effects of arousal on attraction.

• Experimental group – men cross over rickety dangerous bridge

• Control group – men cross over a non-threatening bridge

Arousal

• After crossing bridge, subjects met by male or female experimenter, asked a few questions and to write a short story in response to a picture. After completing tasks, subjects given experimenter’s home phone number and told to call if they wanted more info on the experiment

Arousal

• Men who had been made afraid by the rickety bridge and who had been interviewed by the female experimenter wrote stories that were higher in sexual imagery and were more likely to call the female experimenter at home.

• Appears that subjects attributed their arousal to the woman instead of their fear.

Implications?

• Considering Dutton and Aron’s experiment, how could this misattribution of arousal be used to foster romantic attraction in another?

• How can it explain romances that initially blossom and then quickly fizzle?



Proximity

• Geographical proximity an important factor in attraction. Festinger, Schachter and Back (1950) found that friendships were more likely to be formed between dorm residents at M.I.T. whose rooms were close together.

• Probably affects attraction through providing opportunity to meet and through the mere exposure effect.

17



Physical Attractiveness

• Though many people deny it, physical attractiveness is a powerful determinant of romantic attraction.

• Physically attractive people are rated more favorably than unattractive people over a wide variety of attributes.

• But actual components of what makes one attractive show wide cultural variation

Physical Attractiveness

• The positive effects of attractiveness diminish over the course of a relationship and are replaced by other factors, such as flexibility and compatibility.



Similarity

• Do opposites attract?• It appears that we are most attracted to

those who are most similar to us.• Similarities in attitudes, temperament,

social and communication skills, and sense of humor have all be found to be attractive to others, especially comparable communicative skills




131313

18

Theories of Liking and Theories of Liking and Interpersonal AttractionInterpersonal Attraction

• Equity theory states that people will be more attracted to others when the relationship between them is fair or equitable.

• A relationship in the long run should provide relatively equal benefits and costs for both parties. If not, the relationship may end.




131313

Love

• The Evolutionary Value of Love• Attachment Theory• John Alan Lee: Types of Love• Robert Sternberg: Triangular Theory of

Love

The Evolutionary Value of Love

• Couches love in terms of species survival• Attempts to account for the protection of

infants and lovers and the function of the sexual drive.

• Romantic love may account for the bonds which allow for procreation, but what kind of love accounts for the survival and education of the young?


• According to evolutionary theory, the female has more of an investment in each offspring

a. She must bear the offspring during pregnancyb. She knows the offspring belong to herc. Across the species, the female is most involved

in raising the offspring. Should seek mates with considerable resources


• Males have less investmenta. Can produce more offspring than female can in

a lifetimeb. Can never be sure that particular offspring are

theirsc. Across the species, less involved in raising the

offspring. Should seek mates with signs of good health

19

Love


Love

Attachment Theory

• Hazen and Shaver (1987) propose three kinds of love:

a. Secureb. Avoidantc. Anxious-ambivalent

Attachment Theory• Secure lovers find it relatively easy to

trust others, and so are able to form warm, intimate relationships

• Avoidant lovers find it difficult to trust others, therefore difficult to form intimate, reciprocal relationships

• The anxious-ambivalent lover desires extreme amounts of closeness, often driving partner away

Love


Love

–– Types of LoveTypes of Love

Lee’s Six Types of LoveLee’s Six Types of Love

131313 Love


Love

20

–– Types of LoveTypes of Love

The Triangular Theory of LoveThe Triangular Theory of Love

131313 NonloveNonlove = No components= No components


131313

Infatuated Love = Passion AloneInfatuated Love = Passion Alone


131313 Liking = Intimacy AloneLiking = Intimacy Alone


131313

Empty Love = Commitment AloneEmpty Love = Commitment Alone


131313 Romantic Love = Romantic Love = Passion+IntimacyPassion+Intimacy


131313

21

Companionate Love = Commitment + Companionate Love = Commitment + IntimacyIntimacy


131313 Fatuous Love = Passion + Fatuous Love = Passion + CommitmentCommitment


131313C

hapt

er 1

4C

hapt

er 1

4 Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal and Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectives 111

•• GroupsGroups•• Conformity, Compliance, and Conformity, Compliance, and

ObedienceObedience•• Prosocial BehaviorProsocial Behavior•• Antisocial BehaviorAntisocial Behavior


Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal and Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectives444





•• GroupsGroups–– Social Facilitation and Social Social Facilitation and Social

InhibitionInhibition

Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal and Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectives111444

22

Social Facilitation and Social Social Facilitation and Social InhibitionInhibition

• Social facilitation occurs when the mere presence of others improves an organism’s performance on a task.Social inhibition occurs when the mere presence of same-species members inhibits an organism’s performance.

• Not limited to humans, these effects have been demonstrated in cockroaches.


• Zajonc (1965, 1980) explains that social facilitation and social inhibition are the result of arousal and learning level.


• The presence of others is always arousing, but it has the opposite effects depending on our learning level.

• Well-practiced (dominant) responses will be facilitated, but poorly practiced (nondominant) responses will be inhibited.

Other Theories

• Distraction Conflict Theory points to the distracting effects of the presence of others to explain the same phenomena.

• Others point to evaluation apprehension as a source of social inhibition in humans.

• The phenomenon is well-established, but the explanation is not.

–– Social Facilitation and Social Social Facilitation and Social InterferenceInterference

Social Social FacilitationFacilitation

111444

–– Social LoafingSocial Loafing


InterferenceInterference


23

Social LoafingSocial Loafing

• Often, when working with others, people will work less vigorously than they would if they worked alone.

• The reduction of effort as the size of the group increases is called social loafing.


• Latané (1979) studied the performance of individuals working alone, working in pseudogroups, and in groups.

• He found that subjects did not work as hard in groups or pseudogroups as they did working alone.


• Social loafing can be prevented or minimized by individualized performance evaluation.

• In some cultures, where collective orientations are emphasized such as in China, people actually work harder in groups than they do in Western cultures that emphasize individualist orientations.

–– Group PolarizationGroup Polarization–– Resolving Conflicts in GroupsResolving Conflicts in Groups–– GroupthinkGroupthink


InterferenceInterference–– Social LoafingSocial Loafing


Group Polarization & Conflict Resolution

• Being a member of a group can affect the quality of judgments one makes.

• Group decision making shows a phenomenon called group polarization.

• Group interactions tend to intensify or polarize the net original opinion of the group members.

Group Polarization & Conflict Resolution

• Risk-takers will take greater risks if they find themselves in a group of risk-takers (risky shift).

• Conservatives will take fewer risks if they find themselves in a group of conservatives.

24

Group Polarization

• Myers and Bishop found that groups initially composed of low-, medium-, and high-prejudice members followed the group polarization pattern. The low-group members were less prejudiced and the high-group members were more prejudiced after group discussions

Group Polarization

• Why does group polarization occur?1. Exposure to new information that supports

one’s view may serve to intensify one’s original opinion.

2. Conformity pressures within the group may elicit movement toward the group’s norm and a subsequent strengthening of the group’s initial opinion.




Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal and Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectives111444 Resolving Conflicts in GroupsResolving Conflicts in Groups

• Typical methods of resolving conflicts within groups include the following:

1. Cooperative orientation – one seeks to maximize his or her and others’ outcomes.

2. Individualistic orientation – one seeks to maximize his or her own outcomes

Resolving Conflicts in GroupsResolving Conflicts in Groups

• Typical methods of resolving conflicts within groups include the following:

3. Competitive orientation – one seeks to maximize his or her own outcome while minimizing others’ outcomes.

4. Altruistic orientation – one seeks to exclusively maximize others’ outcomes.





25

Groupthink

• Groupthink occurs when a cohesive in-group seeks to have unanimity of opinion more than anything else.

• Janis (1972) cited the following conditions as conducive to groupthink:– An isolated, powerful, decision-making group– The lack of impartial leadership– High levels of stress on the group

GroupthinkGroupthink• Six Symptoms of Groupthink• Antidotes for Groupthink

Six Symptoms of Groupthink

1. Close-mindedness: Not being open to new ideas

2. Rationalization: Heroic efforts to justify group opinion; may distort the reality process

3. Squelching of dissent: Dissenters are ignored, criticized, or ostracized

Six Symptoms of Groupthink

4. Formation of “mindguard”: Appointment of keeper of group norm to ensure the rest of the group stays in line.

5. Feeling invulnerable: Belief that the group is right, given the intellectual power of the members and available information.

6. Feeling unanimous: Everyone in group believes group opinions are shared by all.

GroupthinkGroupthink• Six Symptoms of Groupthink• Antidotes for Groupthink

Antidotes to Groupthink

• Janis believed groupthink errors could be minimized by the leader:– Encouraging criticism– Being impartial– Having the group look outside itself for anwers– Breaking the group into subgroups, each

meeting separately to consider alternative solutions

26

Janis: Examples of Groupthink

• Bay of Pigs fiasco during Kennedy Administration

• Mass suicide at Jonestown in Guyana in 1978

• Heaven’s Gate mass suicide

Historical Examples of Groupthink

• Although Chinese warned of retaliatory attacks, President Truman still made the decision to invade North Korea in 1950

• Escalation of the Vietnam War in the 1960s by President Johnson

• Nixon’s attempted cover-up of Watergate

Historical Examples of Groupthink

• NASA’s decision to send up Challenger launch, despite warnings from engineers regarding safety of the O-rings in freezing temperatures.

• The War in Iraq?

•• Janis’s GroupthinkJanis’s Groupthink–– GroupthinkGroupthink111444




Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal and Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectives111444 Conformity

• Group Size – As the group increases in size, conformity tends to increase, up to about 3 or 4 members, then remain fairly constant.

• Cohesiveness – group members’ mutual attraction for the group. The more cohesive the group, the stronger the pressures to conform.

27

Conformity

• Gender – Both men and women are more likely to conform when unfamiliar with the topic. Eagly (1987) found women more likely to conform due to feelings of inferiority.

• Social status – High- and low-status members are less likely to conform. High –less pressure? Low- given up on fitting in?

Conformity

• Culture – People from individualistic cultures seem less likely to conform, though not all studies show this pattern.

• Unanimity – When faced with unanimous pressure, subjects more likely to conform

Conformity

• Idiosyncrasy – A minority group within a larger group can have considerable influence on decisions, especially if the minority group is persistent and shows some openness to majority views.

Asch: Experiment on Conformity

• Solomon Asch (1951, 1956)• Subjects told they are in an experiment on

perception—actually experiment on conformity

• One subject, rest in group confederates• Will subject conform to obvious wrong

answer?

–– ConformityConformity

Line Length and Normative InfluenceLine Length and Normative Influence

111444

–– ComplianceCompliance–– ObedienceObedience

•• Conformity, Compliance, and Conformity, Compliance, and ObedienceObedience–– ConformityConformity


28

Compliance

• When people give in to simple requests made by others.

Techniques for Eliciting Compliance

1. Justification – Justify your request. Even if your justification is weak, you will gain compliance more readily than if you simply make the request and don’t justify it.

2. Reciprocity – Appear to be giving the other person something, to instill a sense of obligation toward you.


3. Low-ball – Get the person to commit to a deal under circumstances that you present as entirely favorable. After obtaining the person’s commitment, you reveal the hidden costs or other drawbacks.

4. Foot-in-the-door – Ask for compliance with a small request, which “softens up” the person for the big request.


5. Door in the Face – Make an outlandishly large request that is almost certain to be rejected, in hope of getting the other person to accede to a more reasonable, but still substantial request.


6. That’s Not All – Offer something at a high price and then, before the other person has the chance to respond, throw in something else to “sweeten the deal”

7. Hard to get – Convince the other person that whatever you are offering (or trying to get rid of) is very difficult to obtain.

–– ComplianceCompliance–– ObedienceObedience

•• Conformity, Compliance, and Conformity, Compliance, and ObedienceObedience–– ConformityConformity


29

Stanley Milgram (1974)

• Classic experiment on obedience.• Subjects obeyed Milgram’s requests to a

level far beyond that predicted by him or others.

–– ObedienceObedience

The Shocking Treatment of Mr. WallaceThe Shocking Treatment of Mr. Wallace

111444

–– ObedienceObedience

Milgram’sMilgram’sBaseline Baseline

Results on Results on Voltage Voltage LevelsLevels

111444•• GroupsGroups•• Conformity, Compliance, and Conformity, Compliance, and




•• Prosocial BehaviorProsocial Behavior–– Offering Help: Bystander Offering Help: Bystander

InterventionIntervention•• The effects of others’ actionsThe effects of others’ actions•• The effect of timeThe effect of time

Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal and Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectives111444 Kitty Genovese Slaying

• In 1964, Kitty Genovese was killed over the course of a half-hour within earshot of at least 38 witnesses in her apartment complex in New York City.

• The incident spurred research on inaction of bystanders.

• Darley and Latané discovered the Bystander Effect.

30

–– Offering Help: Bystander InterventionOffering Help: Bystander Intervention

LatanéLatané and and Darley’sDarley’s

FiveFive--Step Step Decision Decision Model of Model of

InterventionIntervention

111444 The Effects of Others’ Actions

• When we witness someone in need of help, we use others’ reactions to help us interpret the situation.

• If we see that no one else is doing anything, we may falsely believe that inaction indicates there is no need for action

The Effect of Time

• In a study by Darley and Batson (1973) a level of hurry was manipulated in seminary students and then they were presented a situation in which a confederate appeared to need help.

• Only 10% of those in a hurry stopped to help, whereas 63% who were not in a hurry stopped to help.

–– Offering Help: Bystander Offering Help: Bystander InterventionIntervention

Seizing the Seizing the Opportunity Opportunity

to Helpto Help

111444

–– AltruismAltruism



Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal and Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectives111444 Altruism

• The willingness to help, even when there is no apparent benefit to do so

• Altruistic behavior may be diminishing in America due to the perceived dangers of helping others

31

Altruism

• There are many examples of altruistic behavior, but what motivates it?

• Cialdini (1997) proposes that altruistic behaviors are motivated by one not wishing to feel the sadness that empathy creates when we see someone in need of help.

Altruism

• Batson (1989) says that empathetic people will help others, even when they expect that their moods will be improved through means other than helping.

• Williams (1966) suggests that one function of altruism may be to capitalize on reciprocity. If one helps another, then reciprocity dictates that the favor be returned.

–– AltruismAltruism–– Peace MakingPeace Making



Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal and Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectives111444 Peace Making

• Peace Psychology is a new branch of psychology, devoted to how psychological knowledge can be used to make peace among individuals, organizations, and nations.

3 Steps to Peace Making

1. Care about others’ points of views.2. Actively seek to understand other people’s

points of view.3. The desire to do something to reduce and

resolve hostilities.

GRIT

• Social psychologist Charles Osgood’s strategy for hostility reduction:– Graduated and Reciprocated

Initiatives in Tension Reduction (GRIT)

32

GRIT

• Making an announcement of an intention to seek peace

• One makes a small step toward reducing tension

• If that effort is matched by the hostile party, another, more bold gesture is made.

GRIT

• If the first gesture is not reciprocated, no more gestures are made.

• If the hostile party increases hostility, the gesturing party also increases hostility

• Research shows that GRIT works• Was used in 2003 for the hostilities between

North Korea and the rest of the world over nuclear weapons.





•• Antisocial BehaviorAntisocial Behavior–– PrejudicePrejudice–– Theories of PrejudiceTheories of Prejudice–– AggressionAggression–– Evil and HatredEvil and Hatred


Prejudice

• Prejudice is a negative attitude for a particular group that is based on limited or faulty information about them.

• Prejudice is an attitude towards a group and not individuals, although we often direct are prejudicial attitudes for certain groups towards individual members of that group.

Prejudice

• Social categorization and stereotypes• Ingroups and Outgroups• The Pervasive Effects of Stereotypes• The Robber’s Cave Study

33

Social Categorization and Stereotypes

• Social categorization derives from our universal tendency to impose order on information via perceived attributes.

• All humans classify people by easily perceived attributes like age, gender, occupation, and at this city.

Prejudice

• Social Categorization and Stereotypes• Ingroups and Outgroups• The Pervasive Effects of Stereotypes• The Robber’s Cave Study

Social Categorization and Stereotypes

• Such classifications lead us to prototypes and prototypes lead us to stereotypes, which are prototypes applied to groups of people.

• Stereotypes to help us to organize and simplify the world, but they also may oversimplify.

Ingroups and Outgroups

• One such oversimplification is the outgrouphomogeneity bias.

• The outgroup homogeneity bias occurs when we applied the behavior of a known member of another group to the entire membership of that group.

• However, we do not do the same for the group to which we belong (i.e., our in group).


• The illusory correlation is a similar heuristic in which we tend to notice the unusual behavior of our group members more so than the unusual behaviors of the majority group members.

• Context also maintains stereotypes.


• Gender stereotyping, for example, is most pronounced in situations in which women in positions of leadership in traditional male occupations is used masculine styles of leadership.

34

The Pervasive Effects of Stereotypes

• Prejudices and stereotypes can have powerful effects, even when they are activated subliminally.

• Chen, and Bargh found that white subjects who had been exposed subliminally to black faces, exhibited more hostility in their social interactions that white subjects who had been subliminally exposed to white faces did.


• Presumably, this occurred, because the black faces activated negative stereotypes that the subjects held for blacks, and the activation of the stereotypes caused negative emotions in the subjects.


• Despite the evidence for the influence of cognitive factors on stereotypes and prejudices, it is also possible that motivational and social influence factors may play a role in the maintenance of stereotypes and prejudices

The Robber’s Cave Study

• Sherif’s study of 11-year-old boys and robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma still stands as the classic experimental manipulation of prejudice. Sherif was able to increase prejudice into groups of boy campers at the park by having them compete for prizes and sporting events.


• The competition combined with the fact that the boys had formed cohesive groups within their separate cabins were all it took for a full-blown prejudice and discrimination to develop. Soon, the boys were fighting, sabotaging without group members, and engaging in vandalism of outgroupproperties.


• After allowing the prejudice to develop, Sheriff was able to reduce prejudice by forcing the boys to work goal operatively to accomplish superordinate goals (i.e., re-establishing water service to the cabins after a water pipe leak).

35


Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal Social Psychology: Interpersonal and Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectivesand Group Perspectives111444 Theories of Prejudice

• Why does prejudice exists?• Realistic-conflict theory states that

competition for scarce resources increases prejudice, as when new immigrant groups compete for jobs.

• Social-identity theories suggests that prejudices function as a mechanism to increase self-esteem relative to others.

Theories of Prejudice

• Another theory views prejudice as similar to a bad habit. People, in this conception of prejudice, may realize that they are prejudice, and they may or may not tolerate behavior based on their prejudice. The difference between individuals, then, comes not from the attitude, but from one’s tolerance of the behavior associated with it.



Agression

• Aggression comes in two forms.• Hostile aggression is behavior directed

against others intended to cause injury or harm.

• Instrumental aggression is behavior directed against others in order to obtain something of value. In most cases, instrumental aggression would not occur if the desired objects could be obtained by other means

Aggression

• Biological Factors in Human Aggression• Social Learning and Violence• Environmental Factors Contributing to

Aggression• Deindividuation• Reducing Aggression

36

Biological Factors in Human Aggression

• In other animals, brain structures and odors have been directly implicated in aggressive behavior. Further, animal aggression is mostly associated with adaptive behaviors like self-defense, predation, depreciation, reproduction, and territoritality.


• Human aggression, however is more complexly motivated, even though its underlying biological mechanisms are similar.

• Hormone affects, testosterone than males and estradiol in females, have been found in humans.


• Higher testosterone levels raise the likelihood of male aggression, and higher estradiol levels lower the likelihood of female aggression. Although the biochemical bases for aggression are universal throughout the human species, the social situations that are likely to elicit aggressive behavior in humans are not.


• Observation of others, culture and individual differences play a large role in determining when and where a person is likely to exhibit aggressive behavior.

Aggression



Social Learning

• Bandura’s concept of social learning is widely accepted to be one of the major mechanisms through which aggressive behaviors are acquired.

• According to this view, people learn to be aggressive by watching others behave aggressively.

37

Social Learning

• Because the models (e.g., parents, peers, or television characters) one is exposed to determine what one learns, we can expect to see wide variation in aggressiveness across cultures. Indeed, it has been shown that individualistic cultures experience more aggression than cultures that have a collective orientation

Social Learning

• Television is a powerful medium because it supplies many models for both children and adults.

• Several studies have demonstrated an association between watching a lot of aggressive television and aggression in children in several countries (i.e., the United States, Australia, Poland, and Finland).

Social Learning

• It appears that watching violent television desensitizes children to the effects of violence on others.

• Aggressive behavior also may be associated with the consumption of aggressive media images for adults.

Social Learning

• Several studies show that prolonged exposure to aggressive models works to desensitize people to aggression.

• Once desensitized, people react less intensely to displays of aggression and are more tolerant of them are in

Social Learning

• Of particular concern is the effect of violent pornography. Men who are exposed to violent pornography have been shown to become more accepting of violence against women, and there is also a link between such exposure and increased aggressiveness toward women.

Aggression



38

Environmental Factors

• Aggression was a societal problem long before mass media. What other environmental factors can be associated with aggression?

• One factor is aggression in itself. Aggression is an example of positive feedback, meaning that a little aggression causes more aggression as people retaliate and conflicts escalate.


• Pain also leads to aggression,especially if the aggression seems to reduce the pain, in which case the aggression is actually rewarded!

• Discomfort, too, may lead to aggression. Discomfort caused by bad smells, air pollution, and high temperatures has been shown to increase aggression.


• Cities that have higher ambient temperatures are more likely to have higher rates of violent crime than cities with lower average temperatures. Aggression also seems to very within a city as temperatures fluctuate.

–– AggressionAggression

Temperature and AggressionTemperature and Aggression

111444


• Another important variable is frustration. According to Dollard and his colleagues, frustration is a necessary and sufficient condition for aggression. However, although many instances of frustration do seem to lead to aggression, this is not always the case.


• For example, when we are frustrated by others, we do at times seem to take into account their motives before becoming aggressive. If someone has frustrated us unintentionally, we are less likely to react with aggression than we would if someone deliberately frustrated us.

39


• Differences in culture also contribute to differences in aggression. Individualistic societies experience more aggression than collectivist cultures.

• The rates of aggression can also very with it in individualistic cultures. A culture of honor or cultures that have a high sense of honor are more likely to show aggressive or violent behavior.

Aggression



Deindividuation

• Aggression is often associated with dehumanization, the process of viewing others as he even less human. Dehumanization is often an unfortunate consequence of mob behavior. But what makes groups of otherwise normal people run amok and riot?

Deindividuation

• One factor that makes aggressive mob behavior more likely is DeindividuationDeindividuation occurs when, as a member of a group, we lose our sense of individual identity.

The Stanford Experiment

• When Zimbardo randomly assigned to Stanford students to the roles of “guard” and “prisoner” in his famous prison study, he intentionally the deindividuatedmembers from each group. Guards wore uniforms and mirrored sunglasses; prisoners wore different uniforms and stocking caps and were identified by number, not name.

The Stanford Experiment

• As a result of these circumstances, the otherwise normal participants who played the roles of the guards began to exhibit cruel and the humanizing behavior.

• The experiment had to be halted before completion, because that the individual waiting processes were so powerful that Zimbardo was at risk of losing control over the situation.

40

Aggression



Reducing Aggression

• Can aggression be reduced to?• The available research on deindividuation

suggest that encouraging people to remain cognizant of their own identities and values while at the same time viewing others as individuals may help to reduce aggression. In addition, some specific techniques for reducing aggression have been developed.

Reducing Aggression

• Can aggression be reduced?• The available research on deindividuation

suggest that encouraging people to remain cognizant of their own identities and values while at the same time viewing others as individuals may help to reduce aggression. In addition, some specific techniques for reducing aggression have been developed.

Methods for Reducing Aggression

1. Observing nonaggressive models: Watching nonaggressive models can increase the likelihood of choosing alternatives to aggressive behavior.

2. Generating incompatible responses: one of the most successful techniques: empathy, humor, and other unexpected responses can diffuse aggression.

Methods for Reducing Aggression

3. Using cognitive strategies: stopping to think raises alternatives to aggression in frustrating or threatening situations. Awareness of individual people as fellow humans and of their humanity reduces deindividuation. Awareness of the reasons for someone’s behavior can reduce anger, frustration, and hostility.

social psychology: 13 social psychology: personal...

Documents