chapter 18 social psychology social thinking social thinking, attribution theory, cognitive...
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter 18
Social Psychology
Social Thinking
Social Thinking, Attribution Theory, Cognitive Dissonance, Cognitive Dissonance Theory, Leon Festinger, Social Roles
1a. Demonstrate Motivation and Emotion Competencies on short 50Q Obj Unit Test.
1. Describe the importance of attribution in social behavior and the dangers of the fundamental attribution error.
2. Identify the conditions under which attitudes have a strong impact on actions. 3. Explain the foot-in-the-door phenomenon and the effect of role playing on
attitudes in terms of cognitive dissonance theory.
Social Thinking
Social Psychology scientific study of how we think about, influence, and relate to
one another Attribution Theory (Fritz Heider 1958)
tendency to give a causal explanation for (attribute) someone’s behavior, often by crediting either the situation or the person’s disposition
Situational Attributions v Dispositional Attributions
Social Thinking
Fundamental Attribution Error tendency for observers, when analyzing another’s
behavior, to underestimate the impact of the situation and to overestimate the impact of personal disposition
>>when explaining our own behavior, we attribute to situation b/c we’re sensitive to how our behavior changes w/ situations we encounter
>>w/ others we often commit FAEWhy? B/c we’ve learned to focus our attention more on
person than situational context
Social Thinking How we explain someone’s behavior affects
how we react to it
Negative behavior
Situational attribution“Maybe that driver is ill.”
Dispositional attribution“Crazy driver!”
Tolerant reaction(proceed cautiously, allowdriver a wide berth)
Unfavorable reaction(speed up and race past theother driver, give a dirty look)
Social Thinking Our behavior is affected by our inner attitudes as
well as by external social influences
Internalattitudes
Externalinfluences
Behavior
Social Thinking
Attitudes & Actions Attitude
belief and feeling that predisposes one to respond in a particular way to objects, people and events
>>if we believe someone is mean, we might form dislike for person and act unfriendly
Do our attitudes guide our actions?Yes-if1. Outside influences on what we say and do are minimal (pol)
2. The attitude is specifically relevant to the behavior (good health v specific exc pln)
3. We are keenly aware of our attitudes (rehearse to keep in consc awareness)
Social Thinking
Can attitudes follow behavior? (behavior >>attitudes)??>>people also do believe in what they have stood up for Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon
tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request
(eg. Chinese “thought control on US POW’s during Korean War –p699)
(eg. Big “Drive Carefully” sign or small sign first—compliance went from 17% to 76% - p700)
Social Thinking
Attitudes follow behavior
Cooperative actions feed mutual liking
Social Thinking
Role set of expectations about a social position defines how those in the position ought to behave
Role >>Attitude?Behaviors might at first feel phony (soldiers in boot camp) but before long
behavior doesn’t feel forced>>Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo 1972)Called off after 6 days
Social Thinking
Why do actions affect our attitudes?--we feel motivated to justify our actions and to reduce Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Leon Festinger)
we act to reduce the discomfort (dissonance) we feel when two of our thoughts (cognitions) are inconsistent
example- when we become aware that our attitudes and our actions clash, we can reduce the resulting dissonance by changing our attitudes
Social Thinking Cognitive dissonance
Social Influence 18-2
Social Influence: Conformity, Obedience, Group Influence-Normative v Informational Social Inf, Group Behavior, Asch, Milgram, Zimbardo, Social Facilitation v Social Impairment, Tripplett, Social Loafing, Deindividuation, Group Polarization, Groupthink, Janis
4. Discuss the results of experiments on conformity, and distinguish between normative and informational social influence.
5. Describe Milgram’s controversial experiments on obedience, and discuss their implications for understanding our susceptibility to social influence.
6. Describe conditions in which the presence of others is likely to result in social facilitation, social loafing, or deindividuation.
7. Discuss how group interaction can facilitate group polarization and groupthink, and describe how minority influence illustrates the power of individuals.
Social Influence 18-2
Conformity adjusting one’s behavior or thinking to coincide with a group standard
-Adopting attitudes or behaviors of others because of pressure to do so >>the pressure can be real or imagined
2 general reasons for conformity1. informational social influence:resulting from one’s willingness to accept others’ opinions about realityother people can provide useful and crucial information (Baron 1996 Study p 705)2. normative social influence: desire to be accepted as part of a group leads to that group having an influence
(gain approval/avoid disapproval)
Social Influence
Baron 1996 Participants judged
which person in Slide 2 was the same as the person in Slide 1
Difficult judgments
Easy judgments
Conformity higheston important
judgments
Low HighImportance
50%
40
30
20
10
0
Percentage ofconformity toconfederates’
wrong answers
Social Influence The chameleon effect Note: mimicry is empathic and empathic indiv are liked the most
Participant Participant rubs face shakes foot
Confederate rubs face Confederate shakes foot
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Numberof times
Social Influence
Solomon Asch 1951 Conformity StudyPrevious 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?
Social Influence 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
Social Influence Which Social Influence is at work?
Social Influence Results of Asch Line Exp
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? subjects reported having doubted their own perceptual abilities which led to
their conforming – didn’t report seeing the lines the way the confederates had
Social Influence Variations to test informational influence hypothesis
Varied group size (IV) 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
Social Influence EFFECTS OF NONCONFORMIST IN GROUP 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 Influence
Factors that Strengthen Conformity (Asch) Subj made to feel incompetent/ insecure Group has at least 3 persons Admire group’s status & attractiveness No prior commitment to any response Others in group observe our behavior Our culture encourages respect for social standards
Social Influence
Obedience compliance of
person is due to perceived authority of asker
request is perceived as a command
Stanley Milgram 1974 interested in unquestioning obedience to orders
Social Influence Basic study procedure
teacher and learner (learner always confederate)
watch learner being strapped into chair -- learner expresses concern over his “heart condition”
Social Influence 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
Social Influence 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
1234
5678
9101112
13141516
Social Influence 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…”
Social Influence How many people would go to the highest shock level? 65% of the subjects went to the end, even those that protested
Social Influence
Milgram’s follow-up obedience experiment
Social Influence Explanation 4 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
Authority of Yale and value of science Experimenter self-assurance and acceptance of responsibility Proximity of learner and subject ( &experimenter) New situation and no model of how to behave
Percentage of subjects administeringthe maximum shock (450 volts)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Social Influence-F/U Studies to MilgramOriginal study
Different buildingTeacher with
learnerPut hand on shockOrders by phone
Ordinary man orders2 teachers rebel
Teacher chooses shock level
Social Influence
Factors that Strengthen Obedience (Milgram) Person giving orders is close at hand and perceived to be a legitimate
authority figure Authority figure was supported by a prestigious institution Victim was depersonalized/ at a distance (soldiers can kill at a
distance…harder when closer) There were no role models for defiance; no other subjects were seen
disobeying
Social Influence
Critics of Milgram 84% later said they were glad to have participated < 2% said they were sorry, there are still ethical issues Do these experiments really help us understand real-world atrocities?
Social Influence
Some individuals resist social coercion (1 in 3 in Milg stdy)
Social Influence Do we do better in groups or alone? Social facilitation (Tripplett 1898)
enhancing effect of an audience on task performanceoccurs with well-learned tasks
Social interference (social inhibition, social impairment, social hindrance) decline in performance when observers are present
occurs with new or difficult tasksEg. Pool players 71%80% w/ 4 people pres
36% 25%
Social Facilitation
Social Influence – Zajonc’s Theory (same Zajonc as “jump 1st, disc why 2nd” in Emo)
Linked social interference and facilitation to arousal level
High arousal improves simple or well-learned tasks
High arousal worsens complex or poorly-learned task
Worsened performanceof nondominant responses(social Interference)
Improved performanceof dominant responses(social facilitation)
Increased drive orarousal
Presence of others
Social Influence Social Loafing (Latane 1981)
tendency for people in a group to exert less effort when pooling their efforts toward attaining a common goal than when individually accountable
>>mainly present in individualistic societies
Social Influence
Deindividuation loss of self-awareness and self-restraint in group situations that foster
arousal and anonymity>>Zimbardo 1970NYU women dressed in KKK hoods delivered 2x the shock to a victim as did
identifiable women
Social Influence Group Polarization
enhancement of a group’s prevailing attitudes through discussion within the group
Groupthink (Janis 1982) mode of thinking that occurs when the desire for harmony in a decision-
making group overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives
Social Influence
If a group is like-minded, discussion strengthens its prevailing opinions
Social Influence
Factors that Strengthen Conformity (Asch) Subj made to feel incompetent/ insecure Group has at least 3 persons Admire group’s status & attractiveness No prior commitment to any response Others in group observe our behavior Our culture encourages respect for social standards
Social Influence
Factors that Strengthen Obedience (Milgram) Person giving orders is close at hand and perceived to be a legitimate
authority figure Authority figure was supported by a prestigious institution Victim was depersonalized/ at a distance (soldiers can kill at a
distance…harder when closer) There were no role models for defiance; no other subjects were seen
disobeying
Social Relations 18-3
Social Relations: Prejudice, Stereotypes, Ingroup v. Outgroup, Ingroup Bias, Scapegoat Theory of Prejudices, Cognitive Roots of Prejudice- Categorization, Vivid Cases, Just-World Phenomenon, Aggression- Biological Roots, Frustration-Aggression Principle, Media and Society Influences
8. Describe the social, emotional, and cognitive factors that contribute to the persistence of cultural, ethnic, and gender prejudice and discrimination.
9. Describe the impact of biological factors, aversive events, and learning experiences on aggressive behavior.
10. Discuss the effects of pornography and violent video games on social attitudes and behavior.
Social Relations Does perception change with race?
Social Relations Americans today express much less racial and gender prejudice >>but is there still unconscious racism running rampant? (Harber
98)p744
Social Relations Ingroup
“Us”- people with whom one shares a common identity Outgroup
“Them”- those perceived as different or apart from one’s ingroup
Social Relations Ingroup Bias
tendency to favor one’s own group Chimps show an ingroup bias – wiping face when touched by an outgroup
chimp Scapegoat Theory
theory that prejudice provides an outlet for anger by providing someone to blame
Just-World Phenomenon tendency of people to believe the world is just people get what they deserve and deserve what they get
Social Relations Vivid cases (9/11 terrorists) feed stereotypes
Social Relations Aggression
any physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt or destroy Frustration-Aggression Principle
principle that frustration – the blocking of an attempt to achieve some goal – creates anger, which can generate aggression
Social Relations
Social Relations
Men who sexually coerce women
Social Relations 18-4
18-4 726-734 Social Relations: Conflict, Social Traps/ Prisoner’s Dilemma, Attraction,
Companionate v Compassionate Love 11. Explain how social traps and mirror-image perceptions fuel social conflict. 12. Describe the influence of proximity, physical attractiveness, and similarity
on interpersonal attraction. 13. Explain the impact of physical arousal on passionate love, and discuss
how companionate love is nurtured by equity and self-disclosure.
Social Relations 18-4
If you you could do anything humanly possible w/ complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?
>>> Deindividuation-abandoning normal restraints to the power of the group; to be less self-conscious and less restrained when in a group situation; occurs when group participation makes people feel aroused and anonymous
Common responses
26% Criminal Act
15% Robbing a Bank
11% Sexual Acts
11% Spying Behavior
Social Relations 18-4
Please copy the following questions and answer them in your notebook— text ref p729-734
Why do we become friends with some people but not with others? (Hint: 3 factors)
Does our love for a partner remain the same as time passes?
Social Relations 18-4
If you you could do anything humanly possible w/ complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?
>>> Deindividuation-abandoning normal restraints to the power of the group; to be less self-conscious and less restrained when in a group situation; occurs when group participation makes people feel aroused and anonymous
Common responses
26% Criminal Act
15% Robbing a Bank
11% Sexual Acts
11% Spying Behavior
Social Relations
Social trap by pursuing our self-
interest and not trusting others, we can end up losers
Optimaloutcome
Probableoutcome
Person 1Choose A Choose B
Per
son
2C
ho
ose
B
Ch
oo
se A
Social Relations 18-4
I. ConflictSocial TrapsEnemy Perceptions
Mirror-Image PerceptionsSelf-Serving Bias (indiv) (Self-Effacing Bias-coll)Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
II. AttractionProximityMere Exposure EffectPhysical AttractivenessSimilarity
Social Relations 18-4
III. Romantic LovePassionate LoveCompanionate Love
equity, mutual self-disclosure
IV. Bystander Intervention/ AltruismDiffusion of ResponsibilitySocial Exchange TheoryReciprocity NormSocial Responsibility Norm
Social Relations 18-4
V. PeacemakingSuperordinate Goals (Sherif Camp Study P767, “Remember the Titans”)GRIT – “conciliatory gesture”
Social Relations 18-4
Please copy the following questions and answer them in your notebook— text ref p729-734
Why do we become friends with some people but not with others? (Hint: 3 factors)
Does our love for a partner remain the same as time passes?
Social Relations- Attractiveness Mere Exposure Effect
repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of them “Familiarity breeds fondness”
Conceptions of attractiveness vary by culture
Social Relations Passionate Love
an aroused state of intense positive absorption in another usually present at the beginning of a love relationship
Companionate Love deep affectionate attachment we feel for those with whom our lives are
intertwined, “mutual self-disclosure”
Social Relations Equity
a condition in which people receive from a relationship in proportion to what they give to it
Self-Disclosure revealing intimate aspects of oneself to others
Altruism unselfish regard for the welfare of others
Social RelationsCog Comp 1. Preocc w/ partner (5,19,21) 2. Idelaization of the other or the relnshp (7,9,15) 3. Desire to know the other and be known (10,22)Emo Comp 1. Attraction to other, esp sexual (16,18,29) 2. Neg feelings when things go awry (2,8,20,28,30) 3. Longing for reciprocity (14) 4. Desire for comp union (11,12,23,27) 5. Physio Arousal (3,13,17,26)Beh Comp 1. Actions toward det the other’s feelings (24) 2. Studying the other person (4) 3. Service to the other (6,25)
Social Relations 18-5
Social Relations: Altruism, Bystander Intervention, Darley and Latane, Kitty Genovese Case, Bystander Effect, Social Exchange Theory, Peacemaking-Superordinate Goals, GRIT
14. Describe and explain the bystander effect, and explain altruistic behavior in terms of social
exchange theory and social norms.15. Discuss effective ways of encouraging peaceful cooperation and reducing social conflict.
Social Relations
Bystander Effect tendency for any given
bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present
<<Kitty Genovese>>Diffusion of Responsibility
Social Relations The decision-making process for bystander intervention
Social Relations Social Exchange Theory
the theory that our social behavior is an exchange process, the aim of which is to maximize benefits and minimize costs
>>presumes that self-interest underlies all human interaction Well, why do we help when there is no benefit? Social expectations (norms) influence helping Reciprocity norm, social responsibility norm, etc
Superordinate Goals shared goals that override differences among people and require their
cooperation (reduce prejudice) (Remember the Titans)
Social Relations
Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-reduction (GRIT) a strategy designed to decrease international tensions
one side announces recognition of mutual interests and initiates a small conciliatory act
opens door for reciprocation by other party “conciliatory gestures” open the communication