Social Psychology

“The Big 3” – Studies in Social Psychology

Solomon ASCH

Conducted a famous study of Conformity (line length) (1950s)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA

key name190

7-1

996

Stanley MILGRAM

Conducted a famous study of Obedience (shock experiment)

(1962)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVlI-_4GZQ

key name193

3-1

984

Philip ZIMBARDO

Conducted the Stanford Prison Study (1971).

Results showed that the role someone plays greatly impacts their behavior

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpDVFp3FM_4

key name193

3-_

___

Attribution theory – the theory that we tend to give causal explanations for someone’s behavior, often by crediting either the situation or the person’s disposition

If your friend wants to borrow your notes, you almost immediately start to think of a reason for your friend’s request If you think she is lazy and doesn't’t pay attention in

class, this is a dispositional attribution If you remember she missed class the day before,

you are making a situational attribution

Attribution

Attribution– continuedWe often make the mistake or error of attributing behaviors to inner dispositions than to situations. This is called the:

Fundamental attribution error – tendency for observers, when analyzing another’s behavior, to underestimate the impact of the situation and overestimate the impact of personal disposition

Snoopy, why did you fail that test?

I had four tests on the same day and the night before I had Red Baron flying lessons – I just didn’t have time to study.

Snoopy, why did Woodstock fail that test?

He’s a bird brain!

situat

ion

disposit

ion

Attribution– continued

Actor-observer effect - attribute behaviors to situational effects when we are the actor, but attribute behavior to dispositional factors when we are the observer

Also we tend to have a readiness to perceive ourselves more favorably than others This is called the self-serving bias

Attitudes– How do they develop?

Behavior can affect attitudes - belief or feeling that predisposes one to respond in a particular way to objects, people and events Foot–in–the–door phenomenon - tendency

to comply with larger request after we have complied with a smaller one Gateway drugsStealingRacism

People can be moved away from their attitudes because they begin rationalizing behavior at smaller steps

One theory is that we want our actions and attitudes to match. If they don’t, we experience stress or tension called:

Cognitive dissonance – theory that we act to reduce the discomfort we feel when two of our thoughts are inconsistent The more dissonance the more likely we are to change

attitudes.

Operant Conditioning Our attitudes are either reinforced or punished

Modeling We learn our attitudes by watching our parents and other

role modelsClassical Conditioning

Attitudes are not hereditary!

Attitudes– How do they develop?

Conformity & Obedience

Conformity – changing one’s behavior or thinking to coincide with the group’s standard.

Conditions that strengthen conformity: Social insecurity Group over three Group is unanimous admire the group no prior commitment being observed culture encourages respect for social standards

Obedience – the tendency to comply with orders, implied or real, from someone perceived as an authority

Conformity & Obedience

Normative social influence A person’s desire to gain approval or avoid

disapproval (to follow the “norms”) can shape behavior Example: turn around and face door in elevator

Informational social influence A person’s behavior may change because they have

been made aware of new information Example: stop using the word “gyped;” seatbelt use

Obedience

Milgram – the results of his experiments solidify the idea that people will go to the extreme in order to obey someone they believe to be a legitimate authority.

Real life example: Jedwabne, Poland, July, 1941

The town of 3,200 Poles murdered half its population, 1,600 Jews.

How Groups Influence Individual Behavior

Social facilitation is the tendency for people to do better on some tasks when they are in the presence of others.

Tasks which are more likely to be socially facilitated are simple, well-learned responses

How Groups Influence Individuals Behavior

Social inhibition is the tendency for people to do worse on some tasks when they are in the presence of others.

Tasks which are more likely to be socially inhibited are complex, little-practiced responses

Social loafing is the tendency for people in a group to exert less effort when pooling their efforts

How Groups Influence Individual Behavior

Deindividuation is the loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people are in a crowd, leading to an increase in impulsive and deviant acts.

Mullen (1986) examined news reports of lynchings in the U.S. from 1899-1946 and found that the larger the mob, the greater the savagery with which they killed their victims.

Deindividuation makes people feel less accountable for their actions. Another factor is that deindividuation increases obedience to group norms.

Lord of the Flies, 1963

Deviance in the Dark (Myers)

How Groups Influence Individual Behavior

Groupthink, when group cohesiveness is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner. Groupthink can lead to defective decision making.

Ex: Challenger Space Shuttle Explosion, 1986

How Groups Influence Individuals Behavior

Group Decisions

Group Polarization: Going to Extremes

Group polarization is the tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its members.

Prejudice vs. Discrimination

Prejudice: an unjustifiable (and usually negative) attitude toward a group and its members. Ex: “White people are evil.”

Discrimination: involves treating a group differently because of their class or other category. Ex: Blacks could not eat at certain restaurants and stay at certain hotels because of their race prior to Civil Rights Movement.

Prejudice is a THOUGHT…discrimination is a BEHAVIOR.

Us vs. Them

Ingroup: “Us”---people who one shares a common identity. We are Ardrey Kell.

Outgroup: “Them”---those perceived as different or apart of one’s ingroup. They are Providence.

Ingroup bias: the tendency to favor one’s own group. Ex: Might not like certain people just because they go to Providence OR Band people may not like jocks and vice versa.

Roots of PrejudiceCategorizationVivid CasesJust World

Phenomenon: the tendency of people to believe the world is just and that people therefore get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Example: homeless people are

just lazy

Self-fulfilling prophecy

The idea that anticipating something will cause a person to imperceptibly change his behavior to make it more likely that the anticipated event will occur.

Example: Studies have shown that some teachers have lower expectations of students who are African-American or Hispanic. The theory states that those teachers will commit small, unnoticeable, seemingly benign actions that could result in African-American or Hispanic earning lower grades.

1954- Robber's Cave State Park in Oklahoma

Two groups of boys – all 11-years-old, white & middle class

No one in either group knew the other group existed

For a week, each group participated in typical camp activities

After a week, the two groups discovered each other

The groups then learned there would be an athletic tournament in which they would be competing against the other group

As the games took place, so did the confrontations – the two groups became extremely antagonistic (ransacking cabins, stealing, food fights)

MUTUAL PREJUDICE HAD BEEN ARTIFICIALY CREATED

The investigators created apparent emergencies that the boys had to resolve through cooperative efforts – superordinate goals (fixing water supply, digging a truck out of mud)

By the end of camp, the two groups were playing together peacefully

WHEN THE BOYS WERE FORCED TO WORK TOGETHER, THEIR PREJUDICES WERE LARGELY ELIMINATED

superordinate goals: shared goals that override differences among people and require their cooperation.

Dehumanization

the ability to view the victims of violence as somehow less than human. Humans find it easier to inflict and rationalize violence against victims who seem less than human.

Bandura's Dehumanization Experiments

Group of college students were to help train other visiting college students using shocks when they error.

Participants overhear 1 of 3 statements:1. Neutral: the subjects from the other school

are here.2. Humanized: the subjects from the other

school are here and they seem nice.3. Dehumanized: the subjects from the other

school are here and they seem like animals.Results: escalated aggression toward

dehumanized labeled individuals.

Dehumanization’s Use in War Propaganda: Jew As Rat

Aggression

TV's Impact (remember Bandura & Bobo?)ModelingFrustration-aggression PrincipleSocial Scripts (when we find ourselves in a new situation,

uncertain how to act, we rely on social scripts provided by our culture)

Links to Aggression

Causes of Aggression: Genes Neural Influences: stimulation to certain neural regions

can increase or decrease aggression. Biochemical Influences: high testosterone levels correlate

with aggressive behavior… 2-way…testosterone boosts and is boosted by aggressive

behavior. Alcohol: 4/10 violent crimes…3/4 spousal abuse

Causes of Aggression

Frustration-Aggression Principle: the principle that frustration---the blocking of an attempt to achieve some goal---creates anger, which can generate aggression.Aversive stimuli also increases

aggression…ex: more spousal abuse in hotter years and months.

Murdersand rapesper day in

Houston, Texas

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit

Psychology of Attraction

Importance of Proximity: can’t usually fall in love with someone you’ve never met.

Mere Exposure Effect: the phenomenon that repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases the liking of them

Similarity also is a strong determinant of attraction: share common goals, interests, and attitudes. Opposites don’t usually attract!

Primacy effect – impression formation (do first impressions matter – YES!)

Psychology of Love

2 Types of Love: Passionate Love: an aroused state of intense positive absorption in another, usually present at the beginning of a love relationship.

Companionate Love: the deep affectionate attachment we feel for those whom our lives are intertwined.

Making Love LastEquity: a condition in which people receive from a relationship in proportion to what they give to it…decision-making, shared responsibilities, etc.

Self Disclosure: revealing intimate aspects of oneself to others breeds liking.

Altruism

Bystander effect a decreased likelihood that an individual will help a person in distress, due to the presence of others

Diffusion of Responsibility an implied reduction in personal responsibility due to the presence of others

Optimum # of witnesses - ???

Kitty Genovese Case March 13, 1964 Along a serene, tree-lined street in the

Kew Gardens section of Queens, New York City, Catherine Genovese began the last walk of her life in the early morning hours of March 13, 1964. She had just left work, and it was 3:15 a.m. when she parked her red Fiat in the Long Island Railroad parking lot 20 feet from her apartment door. As she locked her car door, she took notice of a figure in the darkness walking quickly toward her. She became immediately concerned as soon as the stranger began to follow her. “As she got out of the car she saw me and ran,” the man told the court later, “I ran after her and I had a knife in my hand.” She must have thought that since the entrance to her building was so close, she would reach safety within seconds. But the man was faster than she thought. The man caught up with Catherine, who was all of  5'1” and weighed just 105 pounds, near a street light at the end of the parking lot.

“I could run much faster than she could, and I jumped on her back and stabbed her several times,” the man later told cops. “Oh my God! He stabbed me!” she screamed. “Please help me! Please help me!” Some apartment lights went on in nearby buildings. Irene Frost heard Catherine’s screams plainly. “There was another shriek,” she later testified in court, “and she was lying down crying out.”  Up on the seventh floor of the same building, Robert Mozer slid open his window and observed the struggle below.

“Hey, let that girl alone!” he yelled down into the street. The attacker heard Mozer and immediately walked away. There was quiet once again in the dark. The only sound was the sobbing of the victim, struggling to her feet. The lights in the apartment went out again. Catherine, bleeding badly from several stab wounds, managed to reach the side of her building and held onto the concrete wall. She staggered over to a locked door and tried to stay conscious. Within five minutes, the assailant returned. He stabbed her again. “I’m dying! I’m dying!” she cried to no one.

But several people in her building heard her screams. Lights went on once again and some windows opened. Tenants tried to see what was happening from the safety of their apartments. The attacker then ran to a white Chevy Corvair at the edge of the railroad parking lot and seemed to drive away.

On the sixth floor Marjorie and Samuel Koshkin witnessed the attack from their window. “I saw a man hurry to a car under my window,” he said later. “He left and came back five minutes later and was looking around the area.” Mr. Koshkin wanted to call the police, but Mrs. Koshkin thought otherwise. “I didn't let him,” she later said to the press. “I told him there must have been 30 calls already.”  Miss Andre Picq, who lived on the second floor, heard the commotion from her window. “I heard a scream for help, three times,“  she later told the court, “I saw a girl lying down on the pavement with a man bending down over her, beating her.”

About 3:25 a.m., Catherine, bleeding badly, stumbled to the rear of  her apartment building and attempted to enter through a back entrance. The door was locked. She slid along the wall until she reached a hallway leading to the 2nd floor of 82-62 Austin Street but she fell to the vestibule floor. In the meantime, the man had returned again. “I came back because I knew I’d not finished what I set out to do,” he told cops later.

He walked along the row of doors and calmly searched for the woman. He checked the first door and didn’t find her. He followed the trail of blood to the doorway where Catherine lay bleeding on the tiled floor. And there, while the defenseless victim lay semiconscious, incoherent from pain and loss of blood, he cut off her bra and underwear and sexually assaulted her. He then took $49 in cash from her wallet. “Why would I throw money away?” he asked the court at his trial.

As Catherine moaned at his feet, probably unable to comprehend what had happened to her, the man viciously stabbed her again and killed her. The man, who had selected his victim purely at random, ran to his car still parked where he left it. The entire event lasted at least 32 minutes.

He said later that murder “was an idea that came into my mind, just as an idea might come into your mind, but I couldn't put mine aside.” Catherine was his third murder.

At about 3:50 a.m., a neighbor, Karl Ross, who lived on the second floor of Catherine’s building on Austin Street, finally called the police. But before he did, he called a friend in nearby Nassau County and asked his opinion about what he should do. After the police were notified, a squad car arrived within three minutes and quickly found Catherine’s body in the hallway on the first floor. She had been stabbed 17 times. Her torn and cut clothes were scattered about and her open wallet lay on the floor next to her. Her driver’s license identified her as Catherine Genovese.

Detectives from the 112 responded and began an exhaustive investigation. A canvass of the neighborhood turned up several witnesses, including the one who had notified the police. When cops finished polling the immediate neighborhood, they discovered at least 38 people who had heard or observed some part of the fatal assault on Kitty Genovese.