Social Psychology Lecture Notes PDF

Dr. Maureen Vincent 23/143  Lecture Overview Three areas: Social Thinking Social Influence Social Relations  Scientific study of how we: think about, influence, and...

Dr. Maureen Vincent 23/143  Lecture Overview Three areas: Social Thinking Social Influence Social Relations  Scientific study of how we: think about, influence, and relate to one another Social psychologists Study the social influences that explain why the same person will act differently in different situations Use scientific methods to study how people think What is Social Psychology? about, influence, and relate to one another SOCIAL THINKING  SOCIAL THINKING Attribution Theory Fundamental Attribution Error Attitudes & Actions Cognitive Dissonance  Attribution Theory Tendency to explain someone else’s behavior, by using either : Situational factors OR or personality factors Social Thinking: Attribution Theory  Attribution Theory A man loses his temper and yells at the waiter. You can explain his behavior in two ways: Internal factors- something within the person e.g. External factors – something personality outside the person e.g. “He just found out that e.g. “He’s a jerk!” someone broke into his apartment” Dispositional attribution Situational attribution  Fundamental Attribution Error Tendency for observers, when analysing another person’s behaviour, to: underestimate the impact of the situation Social Thinking: (external factors) and to overestimate the impact of personal Fundamental disposition (internal factors) Attribution Error More likely to use a Less likely to use a dispositional situational attribution attribution  Social Thinking: Fundamental Attribution Error Example Gabby does not speak much during staff meetings, while Kevin won’t shut up…! You might attribute their behaviours to their personal dispositions (internal factors) and decide: Kevin is super- Gabby is clueless smart  Example (Cont.) But in another situation, like a party: Gabby may be a party animal _ “life of the party”, dancing, singing, Social Thinking: Fundamental speaking with everyone Attribution Error  When explaining another person’s behaviour, particularly after observing them in only one type of situation, we might commit the fundamental attribution error It is always best to observe people in multiple Social Thinking: Fundamental situations Attribution Error  Social Thinking How we explain someone’s behaviour affects how we react to it Tolerant reaction Situational attribution (proceed cautiously, allow “Maybe that driver is ill.” driver a wide berth) Negative behavior Unfavorable reaction Dispositional attribution (speed up and race past the “Crazy driver!” other driver, give a dirty look)  Social Thinking 2. Attitudes and Actions  Attitudes are feelings influenced by our beliefs, that predispose us to respond in a particular way to objects, people, and events Attitudes are likely to affect behaviour when: external influences are minimal, and when the attitude is stable, specific to the behaviour, and easily recalled  Attitudes can affect actions EXAMPLES: If you believe stealing is Positive attitude Negative attitude wrong, you will not steal. If we believe a person is mean, we may dislike that person and act in an unfriendly manner. If you start your day with a negative attitude, you may put on sloppy clothes. Attitudes affect actions Attitudes can be changed by PERSUASION in 2 ways: 1. Central Route 2. Peripheral Route  Attitudes affect Actions Persuasion can take 2 forms: CENTRAL ROUTE Persuasion offers evidence and arguments that triggers careful thinking e.g. environmental change PERIPHERAL ROUTE Persuasion uses attention-getting cues to trigger emotion-based snap judgments e.g. celebrity endorsements  But, did you know that Actions Can Affect Attitudes? Actions Affect Attitudes  Actions Affect Attitudes This has been demonstrated by: a. Foot-in-the- door phenomenon b. Role playing  Actions Affect Attitudes: a. Foot in the door Foot-in-the-door People who agree to phenomenon a small request involves will find it easier to compliance with agree to a a large request larger one later after having agreed to a small request Actions Affect Attitudes: Foot in the Door Classic Experiment: Researchers sought permission to place a large “Drive Carefully” sign in people’s front yards 17 % agreement rate But this increased to 76% agreement when people first agreed to a small favour – to place a 3-inch (7.5 cm) -high "Be a Safe Driver" sign in their window Actions affect Attitudes b. Role Playing  Actions affect attitudes Zimbardo – Role Playing Experiment simulated prison experiment at Stanford University Basement– 2 weeks (Stanford County Prison)  Zimbardo’s experiment 24 college students were assigned into 2 groups: Guards Prisoners All participants had a mental health assessment PRIOR to selection – only healthy students could participate in the study  Actions Affect Attitudes: Role Playing (Zimbardo Experiment) One group: Prison Guards Uniforms, clubs and whistle Glasses, batons Dictate 24 hour a day rules. Full power Could go home after their “shift Instructed to enforced certain rules Searched & stripped naked the prisoners Sprayed prisoners for lice No physical abuse allowed –but could use psychological torment Developed disparaging attitudes Became tyrannical Humiliated prisoners Aggressive, abusive Actions Affect Attitudes: Role Playing (Zimbardo Experiment) Second Group: Prisoners Police arrived to take participants to the jail Forced to wear humiliating outfits Smock, ID number locked in barren cells Chains on legs Remain in prison Had no control over the situation Mental breakdown Stress, anxiety, depression Passive STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT – AUG 15-21, 1971 Actions Affect Attitudes: Role Playing (Zimbardo Experiment) One by one, the prisoners broke down, rebelled, or became passively resigned. Guards – too sadistic and devised cruel, degrading routines Prisoners – 5 left early due to acute anxiety, stress Zimbardo – got caught up in role of prison warden After only 6 days, Zimbardo called off the 12 day experiment - because the roles = too real Zimbardo’s Experiment Highlighted the “power of the situation” Never underestimate how a person’s behavior can change as a result of environmental or situational forces Attitudes and Actions! Instagram makes people insecure Cognitive Dissonance Refers to the mental conflict that Posting Photos of my occurs when a person’s behaviours vacation and beliefs do not align. It may also happen when a person holds two beliefs that contradict one another. Cognitive Dissonance: Relief From Tension Festinger (1957) proposed that people experience discomfort when they hold conflicting beliefs OR when their actions contradict their beliefs. People will try to reduce the dissonance to relieve the discomfort (anxious, guilty ashamed) The drive to resolve dissonance is called the “principle of cognitive consistency”  Cognitive Dissonance: Relief From Tension Sometimes our attitudes and our actions conflict with one another (i.e. they Attitude contradict each other) May result in feelings of unease, stress or dissonance (discomfort) (COGNITIVE DISSONANCE) And this (discomfort) may motivate the Action person to do something about it Examples of Cognitive Dissonance 3 ways to reduce cognitive dissonance Example of changing attitude to achieve consistency  Example of change behavior to achieve consistency Example of changing attitude/belief to achieve consistency Example of changing one’s perception of action to achieve consistency  Smoking despite being aware of the adverse health effects of tobacco use. Choosing to promote a behaviour, such as regular exercise, that a person does not themselves practice. This type of cognitive dissonance is called hypocrisy. Examples of Telling a lie despite the person thinking of themselves as honest. Cognitive Purchasing a new car that is not fuel Dissonance efficient, despite being environmentally conscious. Eating meat while also thinking of themselves as an animal lover who dislikes the thought of killing animals. Some researchers call this the meat paradox SOCIAL INFLUENCE SOCIAL INFLUENCE Conformity Obedience Group Behavior CONFORMITY  1. Conformity and Social Norms Conformity: Adjusting one’s behaviour or thinking to coincide with a group standard Conformity: Asch One of the most famous conformity experiments was conducted by ASCH  Conformity and Social Norms Asch’s conformity experiment Which line on the right is identical to the one on the left? The answer is obviously……..  Asch’s conformity experiment Answer is Line 2 (OBVIOUSLY!!!) Conformity and But, how would YOU respond if 5 people before you gave the Social Norms same incorrect answer – Line A? Findings: more than 1/3 of college students gave the same incorrect answer, even though they knew it was wrong Confederates: pretending to be a subject but in actuality working for the researcher (also known as a "stooge")  Conformity and Social Norms Asch’s conformity experiment Student in the centre shows the severe discomfort that comes from disagreeing with the responses of other group members  Asch’s conformity experiment WHY? Because people have a natural need to be part of a group, so they will conform to the norms of groups Conformity and Social so they will be accepted and not Norms rejected  The group has at least 3 people The group is unanimous (everyone gives same wrong answer) One admires the group’s status and attractiveness One is made to feel incompetent or insecure Others in the group are observing one’s behaviour One has not made a prior Asch: Conformity increases commitment to any response One is from a culture that when… strongly encourages respect for social standards  CONFORMITY Two psychological explanations for conformity: Normative Social Influence Informational Social Influence Conformity and Social Norms Normative Social Influence: Influence resulting from a person’s desire to gain approval or avoid disapproval The price we pay for being different may be severe (ridiculed, left out etc) Conformity and Social Norms: Informational Social Influence Informational social influence One’s willingness to accept others’ opinions about reality (i.e., accept others’ opinions as new information) Groups provide information, particularly when we are unsure about something only a stubborn person will never listen to others  Answer: depends partly on our culturally influenced value Individualist cultures (like USA, Australia) – people value individualism – lower conformity rates Collectivist cultures (Asian and African countries) – Is Conformity good or bad? people value on honouring group standards – higher conformity rates Following orders Adolf Hitler Leader of the Nazi Party, Germany from 1933 to 1945 Dictator  Hitler and the Nazi regime set up concentration camps before and during WW 11 to carry out genocide (the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group) The Nazis believed that by annihilating those of Jewish descent and other groups, including the disabled, homosexuals and gypsies, they could achieve a pure Aryan "master race." At the camps, people were subjected to forced labor, medical experiments and mass murder. Nearly 1.3 million people were deported to the Auschwitz camp, alone, in Nazi-occupied Poland, and more than 1.1 million perished at that camp. By the end, 6 million Jews and some 5 million others were murdered in the Holocaust. Obedience: Following Orders Obedience is important – it maintains order and helps society to function But, would you obey an authority, even if asked to perform an objectionable act?  Obedience: Milgram One of the most famous experiments on obedience was conducted by Stanley Milgram  Milgram’s experiment Aim: study the effects of punishment on learning Obedience: (not the real aim) Following Orders Divided participants into 2 groups Learner: taken to an adjoining room, strapped to a chair wired to an electric shock machine (confederate) Teacher: sits in front of a machine with has switches labelled with voltages (participant) Obedience: Following Orders Stanley Milgram’s experiment Task: Learner had to memorize a word list (of pairs) Teacher - tested the learner on a list of word pairs Teacher – punish the learner for wrong answers by delivering an electric shock that increases in intensity Participant Milgram Confederate  Obedience: Stanley Milgram’s experiment Following Orders Before the experiment Survey: most people believed that the teacher would stop delivering shocks when the learner indicated they were in pain and definitely before there were shrieks of agony 40 psychiatrists agreed with that prediction Teacher (participant) Learner (confederate) Stanley Milgram’s experiment: During the experiment – as the voltage increased, the learner would shout VOLTAGE STRENGTH RESPONSE 15 Slight shock grunt 120 Moderate shock “the shocks are painful” 150 Strong shock “get me out of here”, “I don’t want to be in the experiment anymore, I refuse to go on” Milgram – “You must go on” or “the experiment requires that you continue” 330 XXX Learner does not answer – falls silent Final 450 XXXX (death) Milgram orders the teacher to keep asking questions  Stanley Milgram’s experiment: Obedience: Findings Following How far did people follow the experimenter’s commands? Orders More than 60% of men, aged 20-50, complied fully, right up until the last switch Similar rates for women 65% of teachers complied fully when learner had a “heart condition” and complained and screamed more intensely  Jerry Burger (2009)– 70% of participants complied up to the 150-volt point - only a slight reduction from Replication Milgram's 83% of Milgram’s A French reality TV Study show – 81% of the teachers, egged on by a cheering audience, obeyed and tortured a screaming victim."  Obedience was highest when: Person giving orders was close at hand and was perceived as a Implications legitimate authority figure of Stanley The authority figure was supported by a powerful or prestigious Milgram’s institution experiment Victim (learner) was depersonalised or at a distance (in another room) There were no role models for defiance  Implications of Stanley Milgram’s experiment Study showed that: Participants were torn. When kindness and obedience were on a collision course, obedience usually won Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process GROUPBEHAVIOUR  Social facilitation Social Loafing Deindividuation Group Polarization GROUP BEHAVIOR Group Think Group Behaviour: Social Facilitation Presence of others arouses people in 2 ways: Improve your performance on easy or well-learned tasks but decrease your performance on difficult tasks Group Behaviour: Social Facilitation What you do well, you are likely to do even better in front of an audience, especially a friendly audience What you normally find difficult may seem impossible when you are being watched Social FACILITATION EXAMPLE: - SINGING If you are a poor singer – and perform in front of an audience = you will sing even worse than usual If you are a good singer – and perform in front of an audience = you will sing even better  Group Behaviour: Social Facilitation WHY ? When others observe us, we become aroused This arousal will: Increase performance on an easy task Decrease performance on a difficult task Group Behavior: 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 Example: Social Loafing When work on your own = expend more effort When work as part of a group = more likely to exert less effort Ringelmann’s studies (of individual’s and teams pulling on a rope) found those participants pulling by themselves exerted 15% to 25% more pull on the rope than those who were part of a group. Furthermore, each individual’s output lessened as their group grew larger. “Social Loafing” : the tendency to lessen effort because the social body (or team) allows for individual slacking. TUG OF WAR Think about the last time you worked in a group here at Trinity….. Were you a loafer? If not, could you identify the loafer?  When you are part of a group: Feel less accountable and therefore worry less about what others think Why is social loafing more View individual contributions as dispensable or common in a not important –some else will take over group rather Overestimate your own contributions (think you are than individual contributing enough), neglecting other’s actions setting? Unless you are highly motivated and strongly identify with the group, people may free ride on other’s efforts (as you perhaps have observed on group assignments) DEINDIVIDUATION  Involves a loss of: self-awareness and self-restraint occurring in group situations that foster: arousal and Group Behaviour: anonymity Deindividuation  Example: Protests over the death of George Floyd in the United States in 2020 were Socially-aroused by the anonymity as provided by darkness and their Group Behaviour: hoods and masks Deindividuation Later, when arrested some people expressed bewilderment over their own behavior (got aroused or caught up in the excitement of the situation) Group Behaviour: Summary so far…. GROUP POLARISATION  Group Behaviour: Group Polarisation Group discussions with like-minded others strengthen members’ prevailing beliefs and attitudes  Group Behaviour: Group Polarisation People who are considering giving up meat and related products become even more convinced while listening to pro-vegan arguments. If you believe psychology is a good subject, but then you speak with like-minded people, your view will further polarize –you may love psychology Group Behaviour: Group Think  The mode of thinking that occurs when the desire for harmony in a decision- making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives EXAMPLE Group members suppress or self- censor their dissenting views when the boss voices his enthusiasm for a course of action - to preserve the good feeling of the group Group Behaviour: Since no one speaks strongly against the idea, everyone assumes the support was unanimous Group Think  Groupthink is prevented when a leader - whether in government or in business: welcomes various opinions invites experts' critiques of developing plans and assigns people to seek How to out possible problems avoid Group think?  Challenger Explosion How group think led to the tragedy On January, 28, 1986, the world watched the launch of the Challenger space shuttle. 73 seconds into the launch, the shuttle exploded. NASA had information that the launch was compromised. Why didn’t they stop it? Group pressure to keep with the majority decision and proceed with the program resulted in everyone keeping silent and no one objecting. The result? A tragic explosion. Seven astronauts lost their lives. SOCIAL RELATIONS SOCIAL RELATIONS  ANTISOCIAL PROSOCIAL Prejudice Attraction Love Aggression Altruism Prejudice Antisocial Relations: Prejudice An unjustifiable (and usually negative) attitude towards a group and its members Involves: stereotyped beliefs negative feelings a predisposition to discriminatory action Often targets different racial and ethnic, gender, LGBTQ, and religious (belief systems) groups Antisocial Relations - Prejudice Prejudice is a negative attitude. IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS Discrimination is a negative behavior.  Antisocial Relations: Prejudice Prejudice can be: Explicit or Implicit. Deliberately formed. Very aware. Intentional. Controllable EXPLICIT PREJUDICE Antisocial Relations - Prejudice Implicit Relations: Operate on an unconscious level unaware of how your attitudes are influencing your behaviors Example: Belief that girls are not as good at math than boys This stereotypical belief may impact on the number of girls studying maths, being surprised when a girl gets a high maths mark etc Stereotypes: traits assigned to groups of people based on their race, nationality and sexual orientation, to name a few Antisocial Relations: Causes of Prejudice Social Emotional Cognitive  Antisocial Relations: Social causes of Prejudice The just-world phenomenon is the tendency to believe that the world is just and that people get what they deserve. Because people want to believe that the world is fair, they will look for ways to explain or rationalize away injustice, often blaming the person in a situation who is actually the victim  Women murdered walking home at night Shouldn’t be walking at night Shouldn’t have been wearing a short dress She shouldn’t have been intoxicated She was asking for it She should have known better No mention of the perpetuator Antisocial Relations: Social Causes of Prejudice Groups People identify and associate themselves with others (group) Ingroup – “us”, people with whom we share a common identity Outgroup – “them”, those perceived as different or apart from our ingroup Ingroup bias: Favour our own group Antisocial Relations: Emotional Causes of Prejudice Scapegoat theory When things go wrong, we find someone else to blame to provide an outlet for our negative emotion Antisocial Relations: Cognitive Causes of Prejudice Cognitive Roots of Prejudice Stereotyped beliefs are a by-product of how we cognitively simplify the world E.g. categorise by race Other-race effect - the tendency to recall faces of one’s own race more accurately than faces of other races Prosocial Relations 1. Attraction  3 factors that influence our liking for one another: 1. Proximity: most powerful predictor of friendship because of mere exposure effect Prosocial (people develop a preference for things Relations: merely because they are familiar with Attraction them) 2. Physical attractiveness: Affects first impression; predicts frequency of dating and popularity; is influenced by cultural ideals and personal feelings 3. Similarity: Includes shared attitudes, beliefs, interests, age, religion, race, education, intelligence, smoking behaviour, and economic status 2. LOVE  Prosocial Relations: Love Passionate Love Companionate Love an aroused state of intense usually present later in a positive absorption in relationship another Mutually supportive equity usually present at the is important key to satisfying beginning of a love and enduring relationship relationship Self-disclosure deepens As love endures, it will intimacy become companionate love Prosocial Relations: Love Prosocial Relations: 3. Altruism An unselfish concern for the welfare of others May even put your own life in danger to help another person  Bystander Intervention Tendency for a bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present Occurs when there is a diffusion of responsibility Prosocial Relations: Altruism  People are more likely to help when they: notice an incident interpret it as an emergency and assume responsibility for helping Prosocial Relations: Altruism  Prosocial Relations: Altruism The decision-making process for bystander intervention Prosocial Relations: Altruism The likelihood of being helped also increases if You are a woman Similar to you (age, nationality etc.) unhurried or in a good mood not preoccupied focused on others feel guilty  Why didn’t they do anything??? On March 13th, 1964, Kitty Genovese, a 28 year old woman was arriving home from work in the middle of the night when she was fatally stabbed 13 times over a half hour struggle. There were 37 witnesses that saw or heard the attack. No one did anything to help Kitty…… While the details of the case have been questioned over time, the death of Kitty sparked research into the bystander effect. WHY WE HELP? a. Social Exchange Theory b. Social Expectations Reciprocity Norm Social responsibility Norm  a. Social Exchange Prosocial Relations: Why we Theory help? Social behavior is an exchange process, the aim of which is to: maximise benefits and minimise costs  Prosocial Relations: Why we help? Reciprocity Norm b. Social expectations An expectation that we should return Reciprocity help, not harm, to those who have Norm helped us Social responsibility For example, if someone helps you norm with your HOI essay, you will return the favour when they need help with maths Prosocial Relations: Why we help? Social responsibility norm An expectation that people should help those who need our help E.g. children, the poor  Reciprocity vs. Social responsibility Norm You scratch my back, I scratch yours. Lending a helping hand to those who need it. THE END