Survey of Modern Psychology

Survey of Modern Psychology Social Psychology Part 1

Definition • Social Psychology is the study of individual behavior in groups • This is in contrast to sociology, which studies group behavior

Group Behavior Trends Social Norms

Group Behavior Trends • Bystander Effect • Diffusion of Responsibility • Situational Influences • Pluralistic Ignorance

Situational Influences • The bystander effect: the presence of others inhibits helping • Diffusion of responsibility: the belief that others will or should take responsibility for providing help

Bystander Effect and Diffusion of Responsibility Participants were told that they would be in a study about personal problems that students often face. Each person would be in a separate room and communicate via intercom because of the sensitive nature of the conversation. There would be groups of 2-6 people. One “participant” briefly mentioned that he or she had a seizure disorder that was often triggered by stressful situations.

Bystander Effect and Diffusion of Responsibility(Latane and Darley, 1970) The actual participant heard the confederate feign a seizure over the intercom. If the participant believed that he or she was in a pair and therefore the only one who knew about the emergency, the participant tried to get help. When the participant thought that he or she was part of a larger group, the participant was less likely to seek help.

Situational Influences • Pluralistic ignorance – each individual believes that his or her own thoughts and feelings are different from those of other people, even though everyone’s behavior is the same. When we are unsure of whether there is an emergency, we look to others for how to act. We may then assume that, if no one else is panicking, we should not panic either.

Pluralistic IgnoranceLatane and Darley, 1968 Participants were put in rooms alone or with two other people to complete questionnaires. A few minutes after starting, smoke began seeping into the room through a vent.

Pluralistic IgnoranceLatane and Darley, 1968 When participants were alone: • 50% took action within 4 minutes • 75% took action within 6 minutes (the maximum time experimenters allowed the study to continue)

Pluralistic IgnoranceLatane and Darley, 1968 When participants were in groups: • Only one person took action within 4 minutes • Three took action before the end of the 6 minutes • By this time, the smoke was so thick that participants had to fan it away to see the questionnaires

Pluralistic IgnoranceLatane and Darley, 1968 Participants assumed that if there was a real emergency, one of the other participants would take action. Because they did not, they interpreted the situation as being safe.

Evaluating Others Fundamental Attribution Error Choice Expectedness Consequences

Attribution Theory Fritz Heider (1958) How we judge other people. A set of theories that describe how people explain causes of behavior

Attribution Theory • Personal attribution • Attribution to internal characteristics of an actor, such as ability, personality, mood, or effort • Situational attribution • Attribution to factors external to an actor, such as the task, other people, or luck

Attribution Theory • We make judgments about behavior based on: • The person’s degree of choice • Expectedness of the behavior • Intended effects or consequences

Choice We assume that it says more about a person when they purposefully made a choice than if they were forced into a choice.

Choice Participants read a speech that was supposedly written by another college student. The speech either favored or opposed Fidel Castro. Some participants were told that the author had chosen their position, others were told that the author was assigned that position.

Choice When participants believed that the author had a choice in what to write, they assumed that the author’s essay correctly corresponded to their attitudes.

Graph p. 103

Expectedness We assume that we can infer more about a person if their behavior is atypical.

Intended Effects What did the person want to happen? • Acts that give multiple desirable outcomes give us less information about motives For example, if a person lives in a large apartment in a good neighborhood with low rent, it is unclear exactly what made them choose that apartment. However, if it’s a small apartment with high rent, we can assume that the person lives there because of the good neighborhood.

Decision Making Biases Availability False Consensus Base Rate Fallacy Counterfactual Thinking

Decision Making Biases Availability: we overestimate how frequently an event occurs based on how easily it comes to mind. • Participants were asked which is more common, words that start with the letter “R” or have “R” as their third letter

Availability • Participants tended to report that more words start with “R,” though it’s actually more common as a third letter. • It’s easier to think of words that start with a letter. This is especially true if…

Attribution Biases False consensus We over estimate the percentage of people who agree with us

Attribution Biases Base-rate fallacy We are more influenced by a small number of dramatic instances than actual occurrences. For example, people may over-estimate the risk of dying in a hot air balloon accident because of the unique and dramatic nature of the event.

Attribution Biases Counterfactual thinking – the tendency to imagine alternative outcomes that might have occurred but did not. This is influenced by how easy it is to imagine the other outcome.

Counterfactual Thinking • We are more upset by, and fixate more on, what might have occurred after taking an action than inaction • One would feel worse after selling a stock before it went up (“I could have made $500 if I had not sold”) vs. not selling a stock before it drops (“I would have saved $500 if I had sold”)

Counterfactual Thinking It is easier to think of the alternative if you are on the verge of a cutoff point. • For Olympic athletes, it may be more disappointing to win silver than win bronze. • Silver medalists focus on having not won the gold and what they did wrong • Bronze medalists focus on having beaten the competitor in 4th place

Fundamental Attribution Error The tendency to focus on the role of personal causes and underestimate the impact of situation on other people’s behavior.

Fundamental Attribution Error Imagine you did poorly on a test; you might say that conditions were not ideal (room was cold, the guy next to you was playing a banjo, etc.) but you are a smart person who actually knew the material.

Fundamental Attribution Error If someone else did poorly on that same test, you’re more likely to assume that the person did not know the material and therefore their poor performance was their own fault.

Activity

Festinger’s Study (1959) Participants were told that the experimenter was studying various measures of performance. The participants were then instructed to perform boring and repetitive tasks for an hour.

Steps in Dissonance Dissonance happens when: • Negative consequences • Feeling of personal responsibility • Freedom of choice • Foreseeable consequences to actions • Discomfort • Attribute discomfort to one’s own behavior … Kool Aid Study

Kool Aid StudyHarmon-Jones et. al., 1996 Later on, participants were asked how much they actually liked the beverage.

Ways to reduce dissonance Change your attitude Change your perception of the behavior Add consonant cognitions Minimize the importance of the conflict Reduce perceived choice

Ways to Reduce Dissonance Example: You want to save money, but just went on a shopping spree • Change your attitude “I don’t need to save money that badly”

Ways to Reduce Dissonance Example: You want to save money, but just went on a shopping spree 2. Change your perception of the behavior “I didn’t spend that much”

Ways to Reduce Dissonance Example: You want to save money, but just went on a shopping spree 3. Add consonant cognitions “I used coupons, so I actually saved money”

Ways to Reduce Dissonance Example: You want to save money, but just went on a shopping spree 4. Minimize the importance of the conflict “It’s ok, I had fun!”

Ways to Reduce Dissonance Example: You want to save money, but just went on a shopping spree 5. Reduce perceived choice “I had no choice; I was encouraged to help the economy by spending”

Stanford Prison Study (Philip Zimbardo) Undergraduate students were selected to be in a study about the psychological effects of prison life • 24 males were randomly assigned to be prisoners or guards • Participants were determined to be healthy, drug free, and mentally stable • Participants agreed to be in a 2 week long study • Half would be prison guards, other half would live in a “prison” for the 2 week period • Zimbardo played the role of prison superintendent

Stanford Prison Study (Philip Zimbardo) • “Guards” dressed in uniforms, and “prisoners” were dressed in prison jumpers with ankle chains • Prisoners were to be referred to only by their number

Stanford Prison Study (Philip Zimbardo) • Guards had no formal training, but were told to expect that the prisoners could be dangerous. Guards were responsible for keeping order and encouraged to demand respect • Prisoners were told to expect some level of harassment and/or humiliation, and lack of privacy • Guards were allowed to subject the prisoners to some physical punishment

Stanford Prison Study (Philip Zimbardo) • On the second day, the prisoners rebelled and tried to reassert their individuality • Guards quickly responded by removing cots from the prison cells, stripped the prisoners, put some in solitary confinement (a closet) and harassed the prisoners

Stanford Prison Study (Philip Zimbardo) • Guards started a “privilege” cell, where they placed the three prisoners least involved in the rebellion • These prisoners received privileges in front of the other prisoners in order to stir resentment and break down solidarity among prisoners • Shortly after, guards put the “privileged” prisoners back in the regular cells and gave “bad” prisoners the privilege cell • This gave the impression that some prisoners were informants for the guards and further destroyed the bond among prisoners by causing them to mistrust each other

Stanford Prison Study (Philip Zimbardo) • Solidarity among guards increased after the rebellion because they felt that the prisoners had given reason to mistrust them and seemed potentially dangerous • Treatment of the prisoners became increasingly worse • Prisoners and guards grew to identify with their assigned roles

Survey of Modern Psychology