Social Psychology

1. EMPHASIS IS ON THE SOCIAL NATURE OF INDIVIDUALS. Social Psychology looks at human behavior as influenced by other people and the social context in which this occurs. Scientific study of how we influence one another’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors . “Other people” do not have to be real or present.

2. Social Psychology’s Fundamental Contribution Our responses are largely determined by situational social factors; they are not simply the products of our individual personalities

3. Some Social Psychological Topics • Group influence • Aggression • Prejudice • Morality • Stigma • Conformity • Persuasion • Attitudes • Attraction • Helping

4. How others influence our behavior • 2. How others influence our thinking “Other people” do not have to be real or present.

5. Part 1How Others Influence Our Behavior

6. SOCIAL INFLUENCE 1. CONFORMITY: A change in behavior and/or belief to conform to a group norm as a result of real or imagined group pressure (Someone else influences your decision/behavior)

7. CONFORMITY - Change in behavior in response to real or imagined pressure from others (social pressure) SOME REASONS WHY WE CONFORM 1. NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE – conforming to group pressure out of a need for acceptance and approval) People conform because they fear consequences of appearing deviant. 2.INFORMATIONALSOCIAL INFLUENCE • - CONFORMINGto group pressure out of a need for information or direction). People conform because they believe others are correct in their judgments • 2 heads better than one? • . • a) Ambiguous/novel situations b) Crisis c) Others are experts

8. ELEVATOR study - CONFORMITY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge6wmDfsHXA

9. Informational Social Influence • Behavior change results from being persuaded by • information provided by others • Goal of behavior change is to be accurate/ right • Behavior change reflects a true change in one's underlying • beliefs • Attitude and behavior change tend to be strong and stable, and resistant to change • Normative Social Influence • Behavior change results from movement toward a social norm • Goal is to be socially accepted and to avoid appearing different • to others. Behavior change does not reflect true beliefs • Attitude change (if any) and behavior change are weak and unstable; • more open to change

10. Soloman Asch - CONFORMITY “perceptual judgement” Line Comparison Study http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA People were tested in groups, • S surrounded by 6 confederates • Asked to judge length of a line • IV: Confederates give incorrect answer from 3rd round on . The test participant was asked last, after the confederates had answered.

11. The Asch Study, continued 75% of participants conformed to confederates’ judgments at least some of the time and gave the wrong answer. . On average, Ss answered incorrectly 37% of the time. Yet, when left alone to do the line judgements, they errored less than 1% of the time.

12. Conformity increases with group size -- but only up to a point. FEWER THAN 4 GRP MEMBERS LED TO LITTLE CONFORMITY. • Why? • Law of “diminishing returns”? • Perception that others are either in “collusion” or “spineless sheep”?

13. Having an Ally in Dissent • When there was an ally in Asch’s study, conformity dropped by almost 80%. Why does having an ally reduce majority influence on our behavior?

14. Situational Factors in Conformity • Unanimity of the group: It was easier for participants not to conform if just one other person disagreed with the group. Mode of responding: More participants disagreed when judgments were given by secret ballot than given out loud in public. Status: greater conformity was shown by participants of lower status than the other group members or participants who want to be part of the group.

15. Conformity increases when: • People are unsure of a situation • People are of low group status • People lack information • The behavior is public

16. Majority competence: Greater conformity when the majority is perceived as having high competence, compared to low competence Some cultural groups conform more than others As the ambiguity of the stimulus increases, so does conformity Less conformity when the minority is high in competence, compared to low in competence Some Factors Affecting CONFORMITY: .

17. COMPLIANCE: acting in accordance with a direct request from another person or group. Why We Comply

18. Sequential Request Strategies

19. OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY OBEDIENCE: Following the DIRECTCOMMANDS of a person in AUTHORITY. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w “I was just following orders” Adolf Eichman Stanly Milgram study: “effects of punishment on learning” Volunteer told to teach another person (actually an accomplice in the experiment) word pairs by applying an electric shock each time the learner was wrong. The learner also told the volunteer that he had a heart condition. 65% obeyed by going all the way to 450 volts on the “shock machine” even though the learner cried out in protest and eventually could not answer any more questions.

20. Results of Milgram’s Study 300 volts No one stopped prior to 300 volts 26/40 (65%) obeyed orders until reaching the most potent shock

21. 26/40 (65%) obeyed orders until reaching the most potent shock

22. Situational Factors in Obedience • Obedience to authority was lowered by: • increased personal contact with victim • social support of others (e.g., two volunteers working together) • “Authority figure” appearing more disreputable • Disagreement between 2 authority figures Assignment of responsibility: when people are told that they are responsible for harm to the victim, obedience is sharply reduced

23. What reduces obedience? • Closer proximity to learner • Type of experimenter - College student: only 20% • Proximity to experimenter • Phone in commands: only 21%

25. De-individuation Zimbardo 1969 • DEINDIVIDUATION: the loss of self-awareness and self- • restraint in A GROUP/CROWD situation that fosters • arousal and anonymity. Lose a sense of responsibility for own actions in crowd situation “contageous violence”/ mob • anonymousparticipants shocked longer (and therefore more painfully) than identifiable participants.

26. ½ kids asked their name ½ not asked • Then given opportunity to steal candy • Kid’s asked their name were less likely to steal • Even though no chance of getting caught.

27. GROUP INFLUENCE 1. Social Facilitation : the presence of others leads to heightened arousal, in which our performance of simpler, familiar tasks is improved and our performance of more difficult, unfamiliar tasks is adversely affected. : occurs when the presence of others causes individuals to relax their standards. Ex. Sing in choir vs solo. Diffusion of responsibility 2. Social loafing Most likely to occur when certain grp members lack motivation to contribute, feel isolated from the grp, view their own contributions as unnecessary 3. Group polarization: the strengthening of a group’s prevailing opinion about a topic following group discussion about the topic. When several group members tend toward an extreme, the entire group will move toward the extreme

28. Group Influence, continued a mode of group thinking that impairs decision making because the desire for group harmony overrides a realistic appraisal of the possible decision alternatives. A group’s desire for agreement overrules critical evaluation, can be dangerous 4. Groupthink: : the loss of self-awareness and self-restraint in a group situation that fosters arousal and anonymity 5. Deindividuation: 6. Bystander effect : the probability of a person’s helping in an emergency is greater when there are no other bystanders than when there are bystanders. 7. Diffusion of responsibility: the lessening of a sense of individual responsibility for a task when responsibility is shared among members of a group

29. Why do We Help? Gaining Rewards, Avoiding Punishment Helping Others to Help Oneself Helping to Feel Good Helping To Be Or To Appear Good

30. Situational Influences When Do People Help?

31. BYSTANDER EFFECT • The tragic story of Kitty Genovese, 1964 • Attacked 3 separate times by same killer • 38 people saw or heard her cries for help • By the time someone called police, Kitty was dead • Why did no one help?

32. Offering Help: Decision Tree

33. Bystander Effect The presence of others inhibits helping • BYSTANDER EFFECT: DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY Feel less responsible. Assume others must be taking action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4S1LLrSzVE&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE5YwN4NW5o • LATANÉ & DARLEY- We are more likely to intervene when we are alone than when others are also present. In many situations, the more people present in a situation where help is required, the less likely it is that any 1 person will help.

34. Number of Bystanders & Offers of Help

35. The 5 Steps to Helping in an Emergency

36. Bystander Intervention 1. Darley & Latane Model --If an individual is to intervene in an emergency, he or she must make a series of decisions. --Let's suppose that a potential emergency is actually taking place: A middle-aged man walking down the street has a heart attack. He stops short, clutches his chest, & staggers to the nearest building wall, where he slowly slumps to the sidewalk in a sitting position. --So, what are the decisions that need to be made before a bystander (such as yourself) will aid the man? First, the bystander has to notice that something is happening. Second, once the bystander is aware that something is happening, he or she must interpret the event as an emergency. Third, if the bystander concludes that something is indeed wrong, he or she must decide that it is his or her own responsibility to act. (e.g., Perhaps help is on the way; Perhaps someone else is more qualified to help, etc.) Fourth, if the bystander does decide to help, he or she must decide what form of assistance to give. (e.g., Should I rush in directly? Should I call for a doctor? Or find a police officer? Or what?) --At least with respect to the first 3 decisions, the model suggests (and this is the main point) that the presence of other persons (other bystanders) can influence each stage of the decision-making process. --Other bystanders can: 1. Make it harder to notice an event in the first place. (e.g., 'smoke-filled-room' experiment) 2. Define, through their own inaction (or passive behavior), the event as a nonemergency. --Social Comparison is relevant here! 3. Provide the opportunity for us to diffuse response for helping onto the other bystanders. (e.g., 'epileptic seizure' study) --Would it matter if you knew another bystander was an expert, say a 'med-student'? ... Yes, we're less likely to help if we know another bystander is in medical school.

37. Can I get hurt helping? • Cost Analysis of Helping • Perceived rewards and costs for helping Does victim deserve help? Piliavin & Piliavin (1972) hypothesis: The victim must be deserving apparent cause of other’s distress affects helping Indep Var: victim either looked ill, or drunk Dependent Variable: % helping

38. Time Pressure = a cost • Time pressure can conflict with one’s good intentions of helping those in need. • Darley & Batson’s (1973) Good Samaritan study • Princeton Theological Seminary students told they must deliver an impromptu sermon on “Good Samaritan” • Time pressure manipulation: • You have plenty of time • You must go now • You’re late • On the way there, they see man doubled over in pain

39. Darley & Batson’s (1973) Results Note: Many participants actually stepped over the man needing help.

40. Interpersonal Influences Whom do we help?

41. Attractiveness of Person in Need • More likely to help physically attractive people. • More likely to help friendly individuals.

42. The Fit Between Giver and Receiver: Similarity • More likely to help those who are similar . • More likely to help in-group members • Intergroup biases in helping can be reduced if perceive selves as members of a common group.

43. When do we help stigmatized groups?Attributions of Responsibility • Beliefs about the needy person’s responsibility influences helping. • AIDS as a result of blood transfusion vs. sexual behavior • . Effect particularly strong among those who believe in a JUST WORLD JUST WORLD Ho. =belief that individuals get what they deserve in life and deserve what they get.

44. Reactions to Help • How do you think people react to receiving help?

45. Threat-to-Self-Esteem Model • Help is experienced as self-supportive when recipient feels appreciated and cared for. Help is experienced as self-threatening when recipient feels inferior and overly dependent.

46. When Is Receiving Help Perceived as Threatening? • Those with high self-esteem tend to react more negatively than those with low self-esteem. Being helped by a similar other may imply that recipient is inferior. Help from a significant other on an ego-relevant task can threaten one’s self-esteem.

47. Part 2How Others InfluenceOur Thinking

48. ATTRIBUTION THEORY Attribution: inferences we make about the of behavior causes WE CAN ATTRIBUTE BEHAVIOR TO: 1. External Causes (situational): Ones that lie outside of a person 2. Internal Causes (dispositional): Ones that lie within a person Explanation focuses on person’s beliefs, abilities, or other characteristics.

49. Understanding WHY • Jack won the prize because he’s smart. • Susie got arrested because she’s aggressive. • Jason was late for his date because he’s not interested. • Pam broke up with Tom because Pam’s a jerk.

50. Understanding WHY+ • Jack won the prize because the competition was easy. • Susie got arrested because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. • Jason was late for his date because his boss made him work overtime. • Pam broke up with Tom because Pam had to move to San Francisco.