Chapter 18 Social Psychology

1. Chapter 18 Social Psychology

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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 FAE Why? B/c we’ve learned to focus our attention more on person than situational context

5. Tolerant reaction (proceed cautiously, allow driver a wide berth) Situational attribution “Maybe that driver is ill.” Negative behavior Unfavorable reaction (speed up and race past the other driver, give a dirty look) Dispositional attribution “Crazy driver!” Social Thinking • How we explain someone’s behavior affects how we react to it

6. Internal attitudes External influences Behavior Social Thinking • Our behavior is affected by our inner attitudes as well as by external social influences

7. 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-if • Outside influences on what we say and do are minimal (pol) • The attitude is specifically relevant to the behavior (good health v specific exc pln) • We are keenly aware of our attitudes (rehearse to keep in consc awareness)

8. 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)

9. Social Thinking • Attitudes follow behavior • Cooperative actions feed mutual liking

10. 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

11. 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

12. Social Thinking • Cognitive dissonance

13. 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.

14. 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 conformity 1. informational social influence: resulting from one’s willingness to accept others’ opinions about reality other 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)

15. 50% 40 30 20 10 0 Difficult judgments Conformity highest on important judgments Percentage of conformity to confederates’ wrong answers Easy judgments Low High Importance Social Influence • Baron 1996 • Participants judged which person in Slide 2 was the same as the person in Slide 1

16. 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Number of times Participant Participant rubs face shakes foot Confederate rubs face Confederate shakes foot Social Influence • The chameleon effect • Note: mimicry is empathic and empathic indiv are liked the most

17. Social Influence Solomon Asch 1951 Conformity Study Previous 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?

18. 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

19. Social Influence • Which Social Influence is at work?

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. Basic study procedure teacher and learner (learner always confederate) watch learner being strapped into chair -- learner expresses concern over his “heart condition” Social Influence

26. 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

27. Shock Level Switch Labels and Voltage Levels Switch Labels and Voltage Levels Shock Level “Slight Shock” 15 30 45 60 “Moderate Shock” 75 90 105 120 “Strong Shock” 135 150 165 180 “Very Strong Shock” 195 210 225 240 “Intense Shock” 255 270 285 300 “Extreme Intensity Shock” 315 330 345 360 “Danger: Severe Shock” 375 390 405 420 “XXX” 435 450 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Social Influence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

28. 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 absolutely refuse 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

29. Social Influence • How many people would go to the highest shock level? • 65% of the subjects went to the end, even those that protested

30. Social Influence • Milgram’s follow-up obedience experiment

31. 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

32. Percentage of subjects administering the maximum shock (450 volts) Social Influence-F/U Studies to Milgram • Original study • Different building • Teacher with learner • Put hand on shock • Orders by phone • Ordinary man orders • 2 teachers rebel • Teacher chooses shock level

33. 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

34. 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?

35. Social Influence • Some individuals resist social coercion (1 in 3 in Milg stdy)

36. Social Influence • Do we do better in groups or alone? • Social facilitation (Tripplett 1898) • enhancing effect of an audience on task performance • occurs with well-learned tasks • Social interference (social inhibition, social impairment, social hindrance) • decline in performance when observers are present • occurs with new or difficult tasks Eg. Pool players 71%80% w/ 4 people pres 36% 25%

37. Social Facilitation

38. Presence of others Increased drive or arousal Improved performance of dominant responses (social facilitation) Worsened performance of nondominant responses (social Interference) 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

39. 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

40. Social Influence • Deindividuation • loss of self-awareness and self-restraint in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity >>Zimbardo 1970 NYU women dressed in KKK hoods delivered 2x the shock to a victim as did identifiable women

41. 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

42. Social Influence • If a group is like-minded, discussion strengthens its prevailing opinions

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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.

46. Social Relations • Does perception change with race?

47. Social Relations • Americans today express much less racial and gender prejudice • >>but is there still unconscious racism running rampant? (Harber 98)p744

48. Social Relations • Ingroup • “Us”- people with whom one shares a common identity • Outgroup • “Them”- those perceived as different or apart from one’s ingroup

49. 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

50. Social Relations • Vivid cases (9/11 terrorists) feed stereotypes