330 likes | 639 Views
Social Psychology II. Altruism: Helping others. Social Facilitation and Optimizing behaviors. Work harder and better in groups Generally true Sometimes, however, it works the other way Explanation: Social facilitation when the task is well learned
E N D
Social Facilitation and Optimizing behaviors • Work harder and better in groups • Generally true • Sometimes, however, it works the other way • Explanation: • Social facilitation when the task is well learned • Social inhibition when task is not well learned • Social loafing: • think have no responsibility so don’t do any work! • social loafing: tendency to put less effort when working in group than when working alone • De-individuation: loss of individuality that comes from working in a group
Bystander intervention • Less likely to intervene and assist someone when in crowd • Kitty Genovesse (1964) • replicated- smoke filled room • Data show that • more likely to take action when alone • more likely to assist when with friend than stranger • Diffusion of responsibility: • if you feel responsible- you take action • ambiguous responsibility- you not do anything
Influences on helping • Situational ambiguity • Perceived cost • Diffusion of responsibility • Similarity to yourself • Facial features • Mood • Gender and race • Attributions to the cause and need • Social norms
Factors determining whether you help • Recognizing need for help exists • Interpret event as clear emergency • Assume personal responsibility • Choose a way to help • Implement the decision • Offer assistance
Prejudice and Discrimination • Prejudice; a negative, unjustifiable and inflexible attitude toward a group and its members based on erroneous information • Three important elements: • negative or hostile feelings towards ALL members of a group • based on inaccurate or incomplete information • great resistance to change, even in face of contradictory evidence • Discrimination is • behavioral response to prejudice • treat group as prejudice dictates
Causes of Prejudice • Outgroups vs Ingroups • Ingroups = tendency to see one's own group in more favorable light • Outgroup = tendency to see groups outside one's own group in less favorable light • Prejudice becomes most intense when placed in situations where can make us vs them comparisons
Causes of Prejudice • Competition between groups • compete for limited resources, esp. jobs • as intergroup competition increases, more hostility, aggression, conflict and prejudice
Causes of Prejudice • Frustration and scapegoating • as an individual and/or group becomes frustrated, may look for victim to blame • frustration = lack of access to goal • scapegoat = individual or group on whom to blame lack of access • Modeling: learned prejudice
Prejudiced Personality • Cold, rigid • Intolerant • Unquestioning submission to higher authority • Stereotyped thinking • Identification w/powers prone to prejudicial thinking • Characteristics of prejudicial personality childhood: • parents were harsh disciplinarians • parents used threats, physical punishment, fear or reprisals to enforce desired behaviors • was not permitted to express anger/aggressive behaviors • love often with held or made contingent upon being "good“ • felt hostile toward parents, but also fearful of their authority
How Change? • Eliminate or de-accentuate between-group differences • Move away from us vs them mentality • Accentuate how are similar or have similar needs • Decrease competition between groups for same resources • Increased economic growth • More resources • Decrease levels of frustration to avoid scape goating • Teach individuals how to succeed- not be learned helpless • Change the system • Identify prejudiced personalities and work with
Factors in human aggression • Possibly instinctual • Biological influence • Learning • Sociocultural influences • Alcohol use • Emotional influence • Environmental influences
Conformity • Tendency to do what others in group are doing simply to go along • Important that whole group conforms- less conformity if one dissentor
Asch (1951) study • Line discrimination- Mueller Lyer task • 6 subjects, really only 1 cause 5 confederates • found conformity on 34% of trials • Subjects went along with group rather than give truthful answer.
Stanford Prison study: • 24 Stanford undergrad males • Simulated prison, some are guards, some prisoners • Supposed to run 2 weeks, stopped after 1 weekend • prisoners became robotic, dehumanized, aggressed towards guards • guards became brutal and vicious • Social demands elicited behavioral responses.
Eye of the storm • Third grade teacher in Iowa in 1968 • Just after MLK was assassinated • Children had never seen a racial minority and didn’t understand the riots, etc. • Had to create a discrimination, so used eye color • brown eyes vs blue eyes • Blue first, then brown, got special privileges due to their eye color • Kids who were friends turned on each other • Great example of how prejudice and discrimination can begin
Why do some people conform more? • People assume majority must be correct • Concerned more with being liked by group than being right • Easier to go along with the group than stand up
Authority • Obeying another's command or request • Authority • Degree to which believe an individual has control over you can change the degree to which you can comply • Obedience
Milgram study (1963) • P111 students • paid $4.50 • Supposedly random assignment • Learners and teachers • learners received increasing shocks for errors: 13-300v • teachers gave the shocks • Wanted to see how far could get teachers to go- how far comply • Really no shocks ever given, learner = confederate
Results: • 65% completed series- killed learner • Compared Yale vs. Slum/gang kids: • Less compliance in slum • Why? • Ethical problems with study (ya think!?!) • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcXb1aQruwI
Real World Examples: • Real world: • Hitler • Vietnam • Manson killings • Rodney King incident • Special attention also can change behaviors: • Called the Hawthorn effect: • Any manipulation resulted in increased work output
Two ways to get individuals to comply • Foot in the door • Door in the Face
Foot in the Door Effect • Start w/small request and increase size of request • Billboard study • Started w/small request for donations • Asked if could put sign in yard • Kept increasing until asked to put up billboard • Those who initially gave more likely to allow it • Individuals strived to be consistent in behavior
Door in Face Effect • Start w/huge request, then modify down • Volunteer for big thing, then little favor • Why work? Self concept • feel bad about denying request • more likely to then do smaller task
Problem: Reactance: • If too much pressure, individual may do the opposite • E.g. in Vietnam: soldiers killed commanding officers when pushed too hard