Social Psychology Slides

Social Psychology The Power of the Situation “If a social psychologist was going to be marooned on a deserted island and could only take one principle of social psychology with him it would undoubtedly be ‘the power of the situation’. All of the most classic studies in the early days of social psy...

Social Psychology The Power of the Situation “If a social psychologist was going to be marooned on a deserted island and could only take one principle of social psychology with him it would undoubtedly be ‘the power of the situation’. All of the most classic studies in the early days of social psychology demonstrated that situations can exert a powerful force over the actions of individuals.” (Liberman,  Social Influence and Helping The Kitty Genovese story  Social Influence and Helping The smoke-filled room study (Darley & Latané, 1968) − Participants either alone or with 2-3 other “participants”, smoke starts to fill the room from a vent − Do participants get up and report the smoke? − Results: 75% reported smoke when alone; 10% when in presence of others The seizure study − Participants having conversation with one or more other “students” via intercom, one person seems to be having a seizure − Do participants seek help for victim? − Results: 85% seek help when alone; 31% seek help when with others  Bystander Effect The presence of other people decreases the likelihood of helping behaviour  Conformity Conformity – Adjusting our behaviour or thinking to coincide with the group − “Norm formation” (e.g., standing in an elevator, classroom behaviour)  Reasons for Conformity Normative Social Influence − We follow social norms (unwritten rules for behaviour) to avoid rejection and gain approval − We don’t want to “stand out” or be punished  Asch’s line judgment study (1951) 1 2 3 Standard Comparison lines line Which lines matches the target line? When 7 others (confederates of the researcher) give the clearly wrong answer… − 1/3 of people conform on a given trial; 75% conform at least once − Conformity affected by: group size, group unanimity, confidentiality  Reasons for Conformity Normative Social Influence − We follow social norms (unwritten rules for behaviour) to avoid rejection and gain approval − We don’t want to “stand out” or be punished Informational Social Influence − Sometimes we assume the group knows something we don’t! (look to others for information) − Especially in new or ambiguous situations  Obedience Obedience – Complying with a direct request from an authority figure Stanley Milgram: Wanted to understand atrocities of World War II − Nuremberg Trials—“just following orders”? − Would people violate moral beliefs when ordered?  Milgram Experiment (1962) “Study of learning” − Participant is the “teacher”, confederate is the “learner” − Electric shocks after each mistake, increase in intensity − Learner protests, asks to leave study, screams, refuses to answer, complains of heart problem, falls silent The experimenter responds: “The experiment requires that you continue” How many will continue to the highest voltage?  Milgram Experiment (1962) Stunned people—including Milgram We’re more susceptible to social pressure & authority than we think  Why do people obey? Diffusion of responsibility Pluralistic ignorance Entrapment: Gradual escalation of shocks Obedience less likely when: − Less legitimacy to authority figure, more group dissent, more proximity  Take-Home Message The situation often has tremendous power over a person’s behaviour, and can overwhelm personality traits or individual attitudes. This is counterintuitive and so we are dangerously misled into thinking that we know what we would do.  Social Cognition Thin-Slice Judgments Attributions for Behaviour Fundamental Attribution Error Stereotyping and  Person Perception: Thin-Slicing Thin-Slice Judgments: We form quick impressions of others based on “thin slices” of behaviour − These first impressions are surprisingly accurate! Who is more Who is more agreeable? extraverted?  Thin-Slice Accuracy (Above Chance) Variable Criterion Stimulus judged predicted 20-sec tape of physicians’ Physicians’ Malpractice claims vocal tone w/ patients dominance against physician 20-sec clips of couples in Observer Couples’ own ratings beginning, middle, and end of judgments of of love for each other 10-min conflict-resolution couples’ love discussion 5-10 sec videos of interviews Students’ Clinician ratings of with maximum security judgments of psychopathy & inmates psychopathy antisocial behavior  Explaining Behaviour: Attributions Attribution: Inference regarding the cause of an action, event, or behaviour  Explaining Behaviour: Attributions We describe others’ behaviours either in terms of their internal dispositions (stable) or their external situations (varying) When someone shows up late, is this because… − They are irresponsible? (Internal Attribution) − Their bus was delayed? (External Attribution)  Fundamental Attribution Error We overestimate the influence of internal dispositions and underestimate the influence of situations… …When judging other people − e.g., rude behaviour: He’s a jerk! − e.g., helpful behaviour: He’s a nice guy! …But not when judging ourselves − We blame the situation for bad things − And we give ourselves credit for good things − Self-serving bias Why Should We Care?  Attributions in Relationships Imagine your romantic Imagine your partner buys partner snaps at you. What you a gift. What do you do you think? think? a) He’s under stress at work. a) She really cares for me! She He didn’t mean to hurt me. is so sweet. b) He doesn’t really care b) She feels guilty about about me. He’s a mean something. They must have person. been cheap. A = Relationship-enhancing attributions B = Distress-maintaining attributions  Prejudice An unjustifiable (usually negative) attitude toward a group and its members − Often cultural, ethnic, gender, or sexual orientation groups − A pre-judgment Components of Prejudice − Beliefs – stereotypes − Emotion – hostility, anger, fear, discomfort − Behaviour – discrimination  Pervasiveness of Prejudice Prejudice works at both the conscious and unconscious level − Explicit = Consciously held attitudes − Implicit = Automatic, unconscious learned associations between social groups and specific qualities  Like a knee-jerk response more than a conscious decision E.g., Unconscious racial prejudice − 9/10 white respondents were slow at responding to words like “peace” or “paradise” when they saw a Black person’s photo compared to a White person’s photo (Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003) Implicit Association Test  Shooter Bias Black and White targets hold gun or other object Press one button to “shoot”, press a different button to “not shoot” − More “shoot” errors on Black men holding neutral objects − More “not shoot” errors on White men holding guns (Correll et al., 2002)  Roots of Prejudice Categorization and outgroup homogeneity − Underestimate diversity in outgroups (e.g., own-race bias) Ingroup bias − Social Identity Theory: Tendency to favour one’s own group (self- esteem) − Realistic Group Conflict Theory Social inequality – System Justification Theory: Rationalizing the status quo Emotional scapegoating − Prejudice provides an outlet for emotion by providing someone to blame  Stereotype Threat Fear of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group, leading to underperformance − Anxiety, distraction, suppression − Differences in performance disappear when we remove the pressure of stereotype threat (e.g., Steele & Aronson, 1995) 12 Blacks Whites 10 Test scores 8 6 4 2 0 "Test of "Test unrelated to intelligence" intelligence"  Reducing Prejudice “Colourblind” strategies are not effective! Contact (especially friendships) and cooperation Changing social norms  Interpersonal Relationships Forming Relationships Love and Romance Interpersonal Conflict  Forming Relationships: Attraction Three Classic Predictors: 1. Familiarity: Liking those who are familiar (mere exposure effect) 2. Similarity: Liking those who are like us 3. Reciprocity: Like those who express liking for us The Matching Hypothesis: We tend to pair up with others whose desirability (mate value) is similar to our own  Forming Relationships: Intimacy Forming intimacy: Self-disclosure − “Fast friends”: Participants discuss 3 increasingly intimate sets of topics across 45 minutes (Aron et al., 1997) − More feelings of closeness compared to participants in a small-talk condition Self-disclosure increases understanding, builds trust, fosters emotional bonding and increases social support “Of all the people in “Would you like to your family, whose “What do you value be famous? In what death would you find most in friendship?” way?” most disturbing? Why?”  The Role of Responsiveness The Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy (Reis & Shaver, 1988) − The development of intimacy depends on A’s self-disclosure, B’s response, and A’s reaction to B’s response B’s filter: needs, A’s filter: needs, goals, & fears goals, & fears A’s reaction to A’s disclosure B’s emotional B’s response: or expression of and behavioural - feels understood? self-relevant response - feels validated? feelings & info - feels cared for?  Love and Romance Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love Love has three components: − Intimacy: Feelings of closeness and affection − Passion: The drive that leads to romantic and physical attraction/desire − Commitment: The decision to love and commitment to maintain that love Different blends of these components produce different types of love Love and Romance  Love and Romance Passionate love (aka romantic love) tends to fade over time Companionate love tends to increase over time − Deep caring, concern, companionship − Associated with greater satisfaction and happiness  Conflict Any time what you want, feel, say, or do is incompatible or at odds with what your partner wants, feels, says, or does Unequal Exchange Jessie hasn’t had a lot of time to contribute to chores, leaving her feeling guilty for all that Goal Interference Heather is doing Bad Behaviour Chad had a terrible day Tom really wants to at work, and snaps at have children, but Tony when he gets Linda wants to focus on home, asking to just be her career left alone for once  The Four Horsemen Predictors of divorce within the next few years – Criticism: Verbally attacking personality or character (vs. complaint of behaviour) – Defensiveness: Victimizing yourself as a form of self-protection and to reverse the blame – Contempt: Conveying your moral superiority by ridiculing the other person – Stonewalling: Withdrawing to avoid (Gottman & Levenson, 1992)  Contextual Effects of Communication “Negative” Behaviour Beneficial when: severe (Criticizing, derogating, blaming, problems and problems are yelling, expressing anger and solvable irritation, demanding change, Harmful when: minor giving ultimatums, not problems and problems are negotiating) unsolvable “Positive” Behaviour Beneficial when: problems (Calm discussion, restraining are minor or partners are negative reactions, expressing defensive love and affection, using Harmful when: serious humour, minimizing the problems remain unaddressed problem, optimism) (Overall & McNulty, 2017)