Myers’ PSYCHOLOGY

Chapter 18

Social Psychology

Social Thinking

Social Psychology scientific study of how we think about,

influence, and relate to one another Attribution Theory

tendency to give a causal explanation for someone’s behavior, often by crediting either the situation or the person’s disposition

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

Attitude belief and feeling that predisposes one

to respond in a particular way to objects, people and events

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 follow behavior

Cooperative actions feed mutual liking

Social Thinking

Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon tendency for people who have first

agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request

Role set of expectations about a social

position defines how those in the position

ought to behave

Social Thinking

Cognitive Dissonance Theory 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

End Day 1

Homework – Question at end of objectives on pg. 730

Social Influence

Social influence can be seen in our conformity, our compliance, and our group behavior

Some things come in clusters such as suicides, bomb threats, hijackings, and UFO sightings

We act according to social norms, dissenters become rebels – all determined by pulls on the “social strings.”

Social Influence Behavior is contagious Chameleon effect – we are

natural mimics We feel happy when we are

around happy people and sad around depressed people

ConformityAdjusting one’s behavior or thinking to coincide

with a group standard Asch test

1 person arrives to study in time to sit at table where 5 people already are

Everyone is asked which of 3 lines is identical to standard line Repeated

3rd time, the first person that answers gives an incorrect answer; everyone else follows with the same wrong answer

You now get tense and question what to do. Everyone gave the wrong answer. What to do?

Social Influence

Asch’s conformity experiments

Strengthening Conformity

Conformity increases when: One is made to feel incompetent or insecure A group has at least 3 people The group in unanimous One admires the group’s status or

attractiveness One has made no commitments to any

response Others in the group observe one’s behavior One’s culture strongly encourages respect for

social standards

Why Conform?

Why do we do what others do?

Normative Social Influence! influence resulting from a person’s

desire to gain approval or avoid disapproval

We are sensitive to social norms because price we pay to be different may be severe

Informational Social Influence

When we accept others’ opinions about reality

Assume others are right and follow their lead

Baron, et. al. demonstrated our openness to informational influence on tough, important judgments

End Day 2

Conformity assignment!Do something non-conformist!Don’t break any rules or lawsWrite a summary of what you did, how

people reacted, and how you feltExamples – stand backward in an

elevator, wear different colored shoes, etc.

Obedience

We comply with social pressureBut do we comply when we are

ordered to do something?What if they are commands?Milgram set out to test it (1963, 1974)One of the most famous and

controversial studies in psychology

Milgram

You are told the study is about the effect of punishment on learning

Draw from a hat to see who will be the “teacher” and who will be the “learner”

Your slip says you will be the teacherLerner placed in another room and attached

to electric shock machineYou sit in from of machine that has different

voltages labeled.What are you thinking???

Milgram ContinuedYou teach and then test the “learner” on word

pairsYou are to punish the learner for wrong answers

by delivering electric shocksStart with 15 volts which is labeled “slight shock”After each incorrect answer you are to move up

to the next voltageAfter 3rd, 4th, and 5th the learner gruntsAfter 8th the learner shouts about the painAfter 10th the learner cries to get him out of there

and demands to be let outYou are prodded to go onThoughts???

Even More Milgram

If you refuse, the experimenter insists that MUST go on

If you obey, the learner’s protests escalate to shrieks of agony

After 330 volts the learner refuses to answer and goes silent

You are ordered to go on, to the 450 volt switch, if no answer you are to shock the “learner”

How Far???

How far would you go when “ordered” to shock the learner for wrong answers?

Most people say they would have stopped at the first sign of pain and certainly before the shriek

Men age 20-5063% complied to the end

Later studies concluded that women’s compliance rates were similar.

Ugh

Social Influence

Milgram’s follow-up obedience experiment

Reliability? Validity? Ethics?Did “teachers” figure out it was a hoax?

Did they know no shock was being delivered? Did they think learners were faking it?

No! Teachers typically displayed genuine distress

Was it ethical?When participants were told truth they felt no

regret No emotional aftereffects

Does that make it okay?He wondered if they continued because the

“learners” were not convincing, repeated and changed variables (“slight heart condition”)no change!

Compliance

He repeated it later and changed variables (subtle details)

Determined that obedience is highest when:Person giving orders was close and perceived

to be a legitimate authority figureAuthority figure is supported by a prestigious

institutionThe victim was depersonalized or at a distanceThere were no role models for defiance (no one

else was seen disobeying the experimenter)

Social Influence

Some individual resist social coercion

Lessons from Milgram and Asch

Strong social influences can make people conform

Great evils will make us succumb to lesser evils

Evil only requires ordinary people in evil situations

Group Influence

How do groups influence us?Study individuals in groupsHow are we influenced by the mere

presence of others?

Social Influence Social Facilitation

improved performance of tasks in the presence of others

occurs with simple or well-learned tasks but not with tasks that are difficult or not yet mastered

Social Loafing tendency for people in a group to exert

less effort when pooling their efforts toward attaining a common goal than when individually accountable

Social Facilitation

Social Influence

Deindividuation Being in a group can lead to

uninhibited behavior Abandon normal restraints to the

power of the group i.e. yelling at refs/officials during a

game Often occurs when participation in

the group makes people feel aroused and anonymous

Social Influence Interacting with others can similarly have

good and bad effects Group Polarization

enhancement of a group’s prevailing attitudes through discussion within the group

Over time differences b/w groups tends to grow

Groupthink mode of thinking that occurs when the desire

for harmony in a decision-making group overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives

End Day 3

Using the definitions given in notes, with help from examples in text (pages 738-741), describe a situation that is an example of each (you can make it up): Social facilitation Social loafing Deindividuation Group polarization Groupthink

Culture and Behavior

Culture is the behaviors, ideas, attitudes, values and traditions shared by a group and transmitted from one generation to the next

Not nationalities or ethnic groups but rather shared experiences

Humans differ but we all have a shared capacity for culture This accounts for striking group differences

Human nature manifests human diversity

Variations Across CulturesEach cultural group evolves their own norms

Rules for accepted/expected behaviorWhen cultures collide differing norms often

befuddle i.e. personal space - North Americans, British

and Scandinavians have more personal space demands than Latin Americans, French or Arabs

Cultures also vary in expressiveness and pace of life

Cultures evolve and change over time, Americans of 1700 would clash with Americans of today

Power of IndividualSocial control (power of situation) and

personal control (power of individual) interact

When we sway from the majority we can make social history

Minority influence: power of 1 or 2 individuals to sway majorities esp. when consistent (do not sway in their opinion)

When minority opinion is not visible it still may be forcing others to change the way they think – giving it power.

Social Relations

We have looked at how we thing and how we influence one another

Now we will look at how we relate to one another

Prejudice, aggression, attraction, altruism and peacemaking

Prejudice - DefinedPrejudgmentUnjustifiable and usually negativePrejudice is a mixture of beliefs that cause

stereotypes, emotions mixed with predisposition to action lead to action (discrimination) To believe that obese people are gluttonous,

to feel dislike for an obese person, to be hesitant to hire/date an obese person is to be prejudiced

Prejudice is a negative attitude; discrimination is a negative behavior

How People Are Prejudiced

Dramatic difference in the last half century in America

Overt prejudice waned, overt prejudice remains

Might say we are okay with interracial marriage, but would admit to feeling uncomfortable in an intimate setting with someone of a different race

Sometimes overt prejudice still surfaces

Overt Prejudice

After 9/11 and the Iraq war 4 in 10 Americans acknowledged some prejudice against Muslims

Also see it with homosexuals and also some gender prejudice/discrimination continues

In 2003, when asked if they could have only one child what gender would they prefer 2/3rds still said male

Not all bad news People feel more positively, in general,

about women compared to men

Roots of Prejudice Social inequities

“Haves” develop attitudes to justify things as they are tereotypes rationalize inequities Women have been perceived as unassertive but

sensitive and therefore suited for caretaking roles

Ingroup v. Outgroup We are a group-minded species Safety in solidarity – divide world into “us” and “them” Causes communal solidarity but also racism and war Most intense dislike for other groups like us Ingroup bias – we favor our group

Emotions and Prejudice

Prejudice can also be increased by passions of the heart

Can also express as angerScapegoat theory – finding someone to

blame when things go wrong Target for one’s anger Post 9/11 and elimination of Hussein

Cognitive Roots of StereotypesPrejudice comes from the mind’s natural

workings too We cognitively simplify the world

Categorization: We naturally categorize things, including people which creates biases because we oversimplify similarities Other-race effect = own-race bias

Vivid cases: we judge by the frequency that things come to mind

Vivid Cases Vivid cases (9/11 terrorists) feed

stereotypes

Cognitive Roots Continued Just World: Justify prejudice by blaming its victims

“People get what they deserve” Good is rewarded and evil is punished Short leap to the idea that those who succeed

must be good and those who suffer must be bad

German civilian remarked after visiting a concentration camp, “what terrible criminals these prisoners must have been to receive such treatment

Hindsight bias also at work hereBlame the victim, did something to deserve it

Aggression

Most destructive force in social relationsAny physical or verbal behavior

INTENDED to hurt or destroy, whether done reactively or proactively

Research shows it emerges from a combo of biology and experience

Biology of Aggression Considered to be an unlearned instinct Genetic influences Natural influences

Neural system that when stimulated to inhibit or produce aggressive behaviorNo one spot in the brain controls aggressionNeural system will facilitate aggression with

provocation Biochemical influences

Hormones, alcohol and other substances in the blood can influence neural systems that control aggression

More on Biochemical…Testosterone is indicated with higher

aggression levels It heightens dominance and aggressiveness But dominating behavior also boosts testosterone

– so it is a 2-way street

Alcohol Aggressive people are more likely to drink Aggressive people are more likely to become

violent when drinking

Humans are less sensitive to hormonal changes than other animals

Psychology of Aggression

What are the biological factors that pull the trigger on aggression?

Aversive effects: suffering, those made miserable make others miserable

Frustration-aggression principle: frustration creates anger which can generate aggression

Physical pain, personal insults, rejection/ostracism, foul odors, hot temperatures, violent crime, abuse (esp. in presence of aggressive trigger) can generate aggression (fight or flight)

Social Relations

Learning and Aggression Learning and conditioning can have effect on

aggression Aggression when experience has taught us that

aggression pays Social and cultural factors also play a role

More crime when from single family home Once established, aggressive patterns are hard

to change Aggression-replacement programs – positive

rather than negative – replace the aggression “When you are done you can play” rather than

“do this now or you can’t go play” Do we learn aggression through modeling (TV,

video games, etc.)?

Conflict

Seeming incompatibility of actions, goals, or ideas

Elements of conflict are the same no matter the size of the conflict (war to spat with friend)

Why? Why does conflict exist? What causes it?

Social Relations Social Trap: a situation in which the

conflicting parties, by each rationally pursuing their self-interest, become caught in mutually destructive behavior Well being of self v. well being of all or group We reconcile our right to pursue things that

might negatively impact the greater good NIMBY

Enemy Perceptions: Conflict allows us to create diabolical images of each other Each demonizes the other

Attraction3 ingredients in our liking of one another:

proximity, physical attractiveness, and similarityMere exposure effect: the phenomena that

repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of them Advertisers abuse this! Even applies to ourselves! We like the image we see in

the mirror while friends and loved one like what they seeAttractiveness increases opportunities for proximity

Judgments vary by cultureSimilarity make people more attractive on first

impressionWe tend to like people who reward us in some way,

more rewards than costs

Social Relations- Attractiveness Mere Exposure Effect

repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of them

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

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 Relations

Bystander Effect tendency for

any given bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present

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

Superordinate Goals shared goals that override

differences among people and require their cooperation

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